15 tayangan

Diunggah oleh Alfredo Perez

Matemática

- Topologia_matematica_30062011
- Observabilidade Em SEP
- Epistemologia e Topologia Lacaniana
- Pres Teoerg Correlacoes Notas
- Eigenvalues on Riemannian Manifolds
- Arana - Euler y Los Origenes Del Dualismo Contemporaneo (Scan)
- Escritos de Dinámica (Leibniz) -Juan Arana
- Birational Geometry of Folitations
- Elipsoide de Monge
- Teoría Geométrica de la Medida
- Teoría Geométrica de la Medida
- PM_06 Conjuntos de Cantor Dinamica e Aritmetica
- Rosser- INTRODUCTORY RELATIVITY
- topologia algebraica
- Teoremas en Relatividad
- 145586710-Lewin-Roger-Complejidad-El-caos-como-generador-del-orden-pdf.pdf
- Teoría de la Relatividad
- Compressive Sensing
- Pr12
- Serrin J., The Initial Value Problem for the Navier-Stokes Equations

Anda di halaman 1dari 101

Publicaes Matemticas

Expansive Measures

Carlos A. Morales

UFRJ

Vctor F. Sirvent

Universidad Simon Bolivar

Capa: Noni Geiger / Srgio R. Vaz

Asymptotic Models for Surface and Internal Waves - Jean-Claude Saut

Bilhares: Aspectos Fsicos e Matemticos - Alberto Saa e Renato de S

Teles

Controle timo: Uma Introduo na Forma de Problemas e Solues Alex L. de Castro

Eigenvalues on Riemannian Manifolds - Changyu Xia

Equaes Algbricas e a Teoria de Galois - Rodrigo Gondim, Maria

Eulalia de Moraes Melo e Francesco Russo

Ergodic Optimization, Zero Temperature Limits and the Max-Plus

Algebra - Alexandre Baraviera, Renaud Leplaideur e Artur Lopes

Expansive Measures - Carlos A. Morales e Vctor F. Sirvent

Funes de Operador e o Estudo do Espectro - Augusto Armando de

Castro Jnior

Introduo Geometria Finsler - Umberto L. Hryniewicz e Pedro A. S.

Salomo

Introduo aos Mtodos de Crivos em Teoria dos Nmeros - Jlio

Andrade

Otimizao de Mdias sobre Grafos Orientados - Eduardo Garibaldi e

Joo Tiago Assuno Gomes

ISBN: 978-85-244-0360-6

Distribuio: IMPA

Estrada Dona Castorina, 110

22460-320 Rio de Janeiro, RJ

E-mail: ddic@impa.br

http://www.impa.br

Contents

Preface

iii

1 Expansive measures

1.1 Denition and examples . . . . . . . . . .

1.2 Expansive invariant measures . . . . . . .

1.3 Equivalences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.4 Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.5 Probabilistic proofs in expansive systems .

1.6 Exercices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

1

1

6

11

15

22

25

2 Finite expansivity

2.1 Introduction . . . . .

2.2 Preliminaries . . . .

2.3 n-expansive systems

2.4 The results . . . . .

2.5 Exercices . . . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

27

27

27

32

37

38

.

.

.

.

.

.

40

40

41

46

49

56

57

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . .

3.2 Denition . . . . . . . . . . .

3.3 Properties . . . . . . . . . . .

3.4 Applications . . . . . . . . . .

3.5 The smooth case . . . . . . .

3.6 Exercices . . . . . . . . . . .

i

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

ii

4 Measure-sensitive maps

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . .

4.2 Measure-sensitive spaces

4.3 Measure-sensitive maps

4.4 Aperiodicity . . . . . . .

4.5 Exercices . . . . . . . .

Bibliography

CONTENTS

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

60

60

61

64

69

76

79

Preface

It is customary to say that a given phenomenum is chaotic if it cannot

be predicted. This is what currently occurs in many circuntances like

in weather prediction, particle behavior in physic or nancial marked.

But what the meanning of predictiblity is? A simple manner to answer this question is to model the given phenomenum as the trajectories of a dynamical system and, then, reinterpret the predictibility as

the knowledgement of where trajectories go. For instance, in weather

prediction or particle behavior or nancial marked it is known that

nearby initial conditions can produce very dierent outputs thus characterizing a very high degree of unpredictibility. Such a situation is

easily described in dynamics with the notion of sensitivity to initial

conditions in which every face point can be approached by points for

which the corresponding trayectories eventually separate in the future

(or in the past for invertible systems). The worst scenario appears

precisely when the trajectory of every nearby point separate from

the initial one, and this is what is commonly denominated as expansive system. In these terms expansivity manifests the most chaotic

scenario in which predictions may have no sense at all.

The rst researcher who considered the expansivity in dynamics

was Utz in his seminal paper [86]. Indeed, he dened the notion

of unstable homeomorphisms (nowadays known as expansive homeomorphisms [39]) and studied their basic properties. Since then an extensive literature about these homeomorphisms has been developed.

For instance, [90] proved that the set of points doubly asymptotic

to a given point for expansive homeomorphisms is at most countable.

Moreover, a homeomorphism of a compact metric space is expansive

if it does in the complement of nitely many orbits [91]. In 1972 Sears

iii

iv

PREFACE

the uniform topology in the space of homeomorphisms of a Cantor

set [80]. An study of expansive homeomorphisms using generators

is given in [20]. Goodman [38] proved that every expansive homeomorphism of a compact metric space has a (nonnecessarily unique)

measure of maximal entropy whereas Bowen [11] added specication

to obtain unique equilibrium states. In another direction, [76] studied

expansive homeomorphisms with canonical coordinates and showed

in the locally connected case that sinks or sources cannot exist. Two

years later, Fathi characterized expansive homeomorphisms on compact metric spaces as those exhibiting adapted hyperbolic metrics

[34] (see also [78] or [30] for more about adapted metrics). Using this

he was able to obtain an upper bound of the Hausdor dimension and

upper capacity of the underlying space using the topological entropy.

In [54] it is computed the large deviations of irregular periodic orbits

for expansive homeomorphisms with the specication property. The

C 0 perturbations of expansive homeomorphisms on compact metric

spaces were considered in [24]. Besides, the multifractal analysis of

expansive homeomorphisms with the specication property was carried out in [84]. We can also mention [23] in which it is studied a new

measure-theoretic pressure for expansive homeomorphisms.

From the topological viewpoint we can mention [67] and [74] proving the existence of expansive homeomorphisms in the genus two

closed surface, the n-torus and the open disk. Analogously for compact surfaces obtained by making holes on closed surfaces dierent

from the sphere, projective plane and Klein bottle [51]. In [46] it was

proved that there are no expansive homeomorphisms of the compact

interval, the circle and the compact 2-disk. The same negative result

was obtained independently by Hiraide and Lewowicz in the 2-sphere

[42], [59]. Ma

ne proved in [62] that a compact metric space exhibiting expansive homeomorphisms must be nite dimensional and, further, every minimal set of such homeomorphisms is zero dimensional.

Previously he proved that the C 1 interior of the set of expansive diffeomorphisms of a closed manifold is composed by pseudo-Anosov

(and hence Axiom A) dieomorphisms. In 1993 Vieitez [87] obtained

results about expansive homeomorphisms on closed 3-manifolds. In

particular, he proved that the denseness of the topologically hyperbolic periodic points does imply constant dimension of the stable and

v

unstable sets. As a consequence a local product property is obtained

for such homeomorphisms. He also obtained that expansive homeomorphisms on closed 3-manifolds with dense topologically hyperbolic

periodic points are both supported on the 3-torus and topologically

conjugated to linear Anosov isomorphisms [88].

In light of these results it was natural to consider another notions

of expansiveness. For example, G-expansiveness, continuouswise and

pointwise expansiveness were dened in [29], [50] and [75] respectivelly. We also have the entropy-expansiveness introduced by Bowen

[10] to compute the metric and topological entropies in a large class

of homeomorphisms.

In this monograph we will consider a notion of expansiveness,

located in between sensitivity and expansivity, in which Borel probability measures will play fundamental role. Indeed, we say that is

an expansive measure of a homeomorphism f if the probability of two

orbits remain close each other up to a prexed radius is zero. Analogously, for continuous maps, we dene positively expansive measure

by considering positive orbits instead. The corresponding concepts

for certain topological spaces (e.g. uniform spaces) likewise ows or

topological group actions have been considered elsewhere [22], [66].

These concepts are closely related (and sometimes equivalent to)

the concepts of pairwise sensitivity [27] and the -sensitivity [44] in

which the sensitivity properties of these systems are emphasized.

Here we give emphasize not in the sensitivity but, rather, in the

expansivity properties of these systems.

In Chapter 1 we will give the precise denition of expansive measures for homeomorphisms f as well as some basic properties closely

related to the expansive systems. For instance, we characterize the

expansive measures as those for which the diagonal is almost invariant for f f with respect to the product measure 2 . In addition, we

prove that the set of heteroclinic points has measure zero with respect

to any expansive measure. In particular, the set of periodic orbits for

these homeomorphisms is also of measure zero for such measures. We

also prove that there are expansive measures for homeomorphisms in

any compact interval and, in the circle, we prove that they exists

solely for the the Denjoy maps. As an application we obtain probabilistic proofs of some result of expansive systems.

In Chapter 2 we will analyze the n-expansive systems which rep-

vi

PREFACE

for which every non-atomic Borel measure is expansive.

In Chapter 3 we study the class of positively expansive measures

and prove that every ergodic invariant measure with positive entropy

of a continuous map on a compact metric space is positively expansive. We use this property to prove, for instance, that the stable

classes have measure zero with respect to any ergodic invariant measure with positive entropy. Moreover, continuous maps which either

have countably many stable classes or are Lyapunov stable on their

recurrent sets have zero topological entropy. We also apply our results

to the Li-Yorke chaos.

Finally, in Chapter 4, we will extend the notion of expansivity to

include measurable maps on measure spaces. Indeed, we study countable partitions for measurable maps on measure spaces such that for

all point x the set of points with the same itinerary of x is negligible. We prove that in non-atomic probability spaces every strong

generator [69] satises this property but not conversely. In addition,

measurable maps carrying partitions with this property are aperiodic and their corresponding spaces are non-atomic. From this we

obtain a characterization of nonsingular countable to one mappings

with these partitions on non-atomic Lebesgue probability spaces as

those having strong generators. Furthermore, maps carrying these

partitions include the ergodic measure-preserving ones with positive

entropy on probability spaces (thus extending a result by Cadre and

Jacob [27]). Applications of these results will be given. At the end

of each chapter we include some exercices whose diculty was not

estimated. Some basics of dynamical systems, ergodic and measure

theory will be recommendable for the comprension of this text.

September 2012

UFRJ, USB

C. A. M. & V. F. S.

Rio de Janeiro, Caracas.

Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank the Instituto de Matematica Pura e

Aplicada (IMPA) and the Sim

on Bolvar University for their kindly

hospitality. They also thank their colleagues professors Alexander Arbieto, Dante Carrasco-Olivera, Jose Carlos Martin-Rivas and Laura

Senos by the invaluable mathematical conversations.

C.A.M. was partially supported by FAPERJ, CAPES, CNPq,

PRONEX-DYN. SYS. from Brazil and the Sim

on Bolvar University

from Venezuela.

vii

Chapter 1

Expansive measures

1.1

homeomorphisms and present some examples. To motivate let us

recall the concept of expansive homeomorphism.

Denition 1.1. A homeomorphism f : X X of a metric space

X is expansive if there is > 0 such that for every pair of dierent

points x, y X there is n Z such that d(f n (x), f n (y)) > .

An important remark is given below.

Remark 1.2. Equivalently, f is expansive if there is > 0 such that

(x) = {x} for all x X where

(x) = {y X : d(f i (x), f i (y)) , i Z}.

(Notation f (x) will indicate dependence on f .)

This denition suggests further notions of expansiveness involving

a given property (P) of the closed sets in X. More precisely, we say

that f is expansive with respect to (P) if there is > 0 such that

(x) satises (P) for all x X.

For example, a homeomorphism is expansive it is expansive with

respect to the property of being a single point. Analogously, it is

1

of being a zero entropy set. In this vein it is natural to consider the

property of having zero measure with respect to a given Borel probability measure of X. By Borel measure we mean a non-negative

-additive function dened in the Borel -algebra of X which is

non-zero in the sense that (X) > 0.

Denition 1.3. A expansive measure of homeomorphism f : X X

of a metric space X is a Borel measure for which there is > 0

such that ( (x)) = 0 for all x X. The constant will be referred

to as an expansivity constant of .

Let us present some examples related to this denition. Recall

that a Borel measure of a metric space X is a probability if (X) = 1

and non-atomic if ({x}) = 0 for all x X.

Example 1.4. Every expansive measure is non-atomic. Therefore,

every metric space carrying homeomorphisms with expansive (probability) measures also carries a non-atomic Borel (probability) measure.

In the converse direction we have the following relation between

expansive homeomorphisms and expansive measures for homeomorphisms.

Example 1.5. If f : X X is an expansive homeomorphism of

a metric space X, then every non-atomic Borel measure of X (if it

exists) is an expansive measure of f . Moreover, all such measures

have a common expansivity constant.

Example 1.5 motivates the question whether a homeomorphism

is expansive if it satises that every non-atomic Borel measure (if it

exists) is expansive with a common expansivity constant. We shall

give a partial positive answer based on the following denition (closely

related to that of expansive homeomorphism).

Denition 1.6. A homeomorphism f : X X of a metric spaces X

is countably-expansive if there is > 0 such that (x) is countable,

x X.

but not conversely (as we shall see in Chapter 2). In addition, every countably-expansive homeomorphism satises that all non-atomic

Borel probability measures (if they exist) are expansive with common

expansivity constant. The following result proves the converse of this

last assertion for Polish metric spaces, i.e., metric spaces which are

both complete and separable.

Proposition 1.7. The following properties are equivalent for every

homeomorphism f : X X of a Polish metric space X:

1. f is countably-expansive.

2. All non-atomic Borel probability measures of X (if they exit)

are expansive with a common expansivity constant.

Proof. By the previous discussion we only have to prove that (2) implies (1). Suppose by contradiction that all non-atomic Borel probability measures are expansive measures with a common expansivity

constant (say ) but f is not countably-expansive. Then, there is

x X such that (x) is uncountable. Since (x) is also a closed

subset of X which is a Polish metric space, we have that (x) is

a Polish metric space too. Then, we can apply a result in [73] (e.g.

Theorem 8.1 p. 53 in [72]) to obtain a non-atomic Borel probability

of X supported on (x). For such a measure we would obtain

( (x)) = 1 a contradiction.

In light of this proposition it is natural to ask what can happen

if we still assume that all non-atomic Borel probability measure (if it

exist) are expansive but without assuming that they have a common

expansivity constant.

This question emphasizes the role of metric spaces for which there

are non-atomic Borel probability measures. For the sake of convenience we call these spaces non-atomic metric spaces. The aforementioned result in [73] (stated in Theorem 8.1 p. 53 in [72]) implies that

every uncountable Polish metric space is a non-atomic metric space.

This includes the compact metric space containing perfect subsets

[55]. Every non-atomic metric space is uncountable.

Another related denition is as follows.

metric space X is measure-expansive if every non-atomic Borel probability measure is expansive for f .

It is clear that every expansive homeomorphism of a non-atomic

metric space is measure-expansive. Moreover, as discussed in Example 1.5, every countably-expansive homeomorphism of a non-atomic

metric space is measure-expansive. Although we obtain in Example

3.44 that there are measure-expansive homeomorphisms of compact

non-atomic metric spaces which are not expansive, we dont know

any example of one which is not countably-expansive (see Problem

1.46). Some dynamical consequences of measure-expansivity resembling expansivity will be given later on.

Further examples of homeomorphisms without expansive measures can be obtained as follows. Recall that an isometry of a metric

space X is a map f : X X satisfying d(f (x), f (y)) = d(x, y) for

all x, y X.

Example 1.9. Every isometry of a separable metric space has no expansive measures. In particular, the identity map in these spaces (or

the rotations in R2 or translations in Rn ) are not measure-expansive

homeomorphisms.

Proof. Suppose by contradiction that there is a an expansive measure

for some isometry f of a separable metric space X. Since f is an

isometry we have (x) = B[x, ], where B[x, ] denotes the closed

-ball around x. If is an expansivity constant, then (B[x, ]) =

( (x)) = 0 for all x X. Nevertheless, since X is separable (and

so Lindel

of), we can select a countable covering {C1 , C2 , , Cn , }

of X by closed subsets such that

for all n thereis xn X such that

which is a contradiction. This proves the result.

Example 1.10. Endow Rn with a metric space with the Euclidean

metric and denote by Leb the Lebesgue measure in Rn . Then, Leb is

an expansive measure of a linear isomorphism f : Rn Rn if and

only if f has eigenvalues of modulus less than or bigger than 1.

Proof. Since f is linear we have (x) = (0) + x thus Leb( (x)) =

Leb( (0)) for all x Rn and > 0. If f has eigenvalues of modulus

less than or bigger than 1, then (0) is contained in a proper subspace of Rn which implies Leb( (0)) = 0 thus Leb is expansive.

Example 1.11. As we shall see later, a homeomorphism of a compact interval has no expansive measures. In the circle the sole homeomorphisms having such measures are the Denjoy ones.

Recall that a subset Y X is invariant if f 1 (Y ) = Y .

Example 1.12. A homeomorphism f has an expansive measure if

and only if there is an invariant borelian set Y of f such that the

restriction f /Y has an expansive measure.

Proof. We only have to prove the only if part. Assume that f /Y

has an expansive measure . Fix > 0. Since Y is invariant we

f /Y

have either f/2 (x) Y = or f/2 (x) Y (y) for some

f /Y

for some y Y where is the Borel probability of X dened by

(A) = (A Y ). From this we obtain that for all x X there is

f /Y

y Y such that (f/2 (x)) ( (y)). Taking as an expansivity

constant of f /Y we obtain (f/2 (x)) = 0 for all x X thus is

expansive with expansivity constant /2.

The next example implies that the property of having expansive

measures is a conjugacy invariant. Given a Borel measure in X

and a homeomorphism : X Y we denote by () the pullback

of dened by ()(A) = (1 (A)) for all borelian A.

Example 1.13. Let be an expansive measure of a homeomorphism

f : X X of a compact metric space X. If : X Y is a

homeomorphism of compact metric spaces, then () is an expansive

measure of f 1 .

Proof. Clearly is uniformly continuous so for all > 0 there is > 0

such that f (y) (f (1 (y))) for all y Y . This implies

()(f

(y)) (f (1 (y))).

expansivity constant of ().

For the next example recall that a periodic point of a homeomorphism (or map) f : X X is a point x X such that f n (x) = x for

some n N+ . The nonwandering set of f is the set (f ) of points

x X such that for every neighborhood U of x there is n N+ satisfying f n (U )U

= . Clearly a periodic point belongs to (f ) but not

every point in (f ) is periodic. If X = M is a closed (i.e. compact

connected boundaryless Riemannian) manifold and f is a dieomorphism we say that an invariant set H is hyperbolic if there are a cons

u

EH

tinuous invariant tangent bundle decomposition TH M = EH

and positive constants K, > 1 such that

Df n (x)/Exs Kn

and

m(Df n (x)/Exu ) K 1 n ,

We say that f is Axiom A if (f ) is hyperbolic and the closure of

the set of periodic points.

Example 1.14. Every Axiom A dieomorphism with innite nonwandering set of a closed manifold has expansive measures.

Proof. Consider an Axiom A dieomorphism f of a closed manifold. It is well known that there is a spectral decomposition (f ) =

H1 Hk consisting of nitely many disjoint homoclinic classes

H1 , , Hk of f (see [40] for the corresponding denitions). Since

(f ) is innite we have that H = Hi is innite for some 1 i k.

As is well known f /H is expansive. On the other hand, H is compact

without isolated points since it is a homoclinic class. It follows from

Example 1.5 that f /H has an expansive measure, so, f also has by

Example 1.12.

We shall prove in the next section that every homeomorphism

with expansive measures of a compact metric space has uncountable

nonwandering set.

1.2

say that a Borel measure of X is invariant if f = . In this

for homeomorphisms on compact metric spaces.

Indeed, every homeomorphism of a compact metric space carries

invariant measures, but not necessarily expansive measures (e.g. the

circle rotations). On the other hand, the homeomorphism f (x) = 2x

on the real line exhibits expansive probability measures (e.g. the

Lebesgue measure supported on the unit interval) but not expansive invariant probability measures. The result of this section will

show that the situation described in this example does not occur on

compact metric spaces. More precisely, we will show that every homeomorphism exhibiting expansive probability measures of a compact

metric space also exhibit expansive invariant probability measures.

We start with the following observation where f is assumed to be

a bijective map, namely,

(x, ) X R+ .

f ( (x)) = (f (x)),

Lemma 1.15. Let f : X X be a homeomorphism of a metric

space X. If is an expansive measure with expansivity constant of

f , then so does f .

Proof. Applying the previous observation to f 1 we obtain

f ( (x)) = (f 1 ( (x)) = ( (f 1 (x))) = 0

for all x X.

Another useful observation is as follows. Given a bijective map

f : X X, x X, > 0 and n N+ we dene

V [x, n, ] = {y X : d(f i (x), f i (y)) , for all n i n},

i.e.,

V [x, n, ] =

n

i=n

is then clear that

V [x, n, ]

(x) =

nN+

( (x)) = lim (V [x, kl , ])

l

(1.1)

every sequence kl . From this we have the following lemma.

Lemma 1.16. Let f : X X be a homeomorphism of a metric

space X. A Borel probability measure is an expansive measure of

f if and only if there is > 0 such that

lim inf (V [x, n, ]) = 0,

n

for all x X.

Lemma 1.17. If f : X X is a homeomorphism of a metric space

X, then every invariant measure of f which is the limit (with respect

to the weak-* topology) of a sequence of expansive probability measures

with a common expansivity constant of f is expansive for f .

Proof. Denote by A = Cl(A)\Int(A) the closure of a subset A X.

Let be an invariant probability measure of f . As in the proof of

Lemma 8.5 p. 187 in [40] for all x X we can nd 2 < x < such

that

((B[x, x ])) = 0.

This allows us to dene

W [x, n] =

n

(x, n) X N.

i=n

Since

V x, n,

W [x, n] V [x, n, ],

(x, n) X N.

2

n

i

i

f (B[f (x), f i (x) ])

(W [x, n]) =

i=n

(1.2)

n

n

f i (B[f i (x), f i (x) ]) ,

i=n

i=n

((W [x, n]))

i=n

n

i=n

proving

((W [x, n])) = 0,

(x, n) X N.

(1.3)

probability measures n withoutcommon expansivity constant of f .

Clearly, is also a probability measure. Fix x X. Since each n is

a probability we have 0 m (W [x, n]) 1 for all n, m N. Then,

we can apply the Bolzano-Weierstrass Theorem to nd sequences

kl , rs for which the double limit

lim rs (W [x, kl ])

l,s

exists.

On the one hand, for xed l, using (1.3), n and well-known

properties of the weak-* topology (e.g. Theorem 6.1-(e) p. 40 in [72])

one has that the limit

lim rs (W [x, kl ]) = (W [x, kl ])

exists.

On the other hand, the second inequality in (1.2) and (1.1) imply

for xed s that

lim rs (W [x, kl ]) lim rs (V [x, kl , ]) = rs ( (x)) = 0.

lim rs (W [x, kl ]) = 0

10

From these assertions and well-known properties of double sequences one obtains

lim lim rs (W [x, kl ]) = lim lim rs (W [x, kl ]) = 0.

l s

s l

lim inf V x, n,

lim V x, kl ,

lim (W [x, kl ])

n

l

l

2

2

and n together with (1.3) yields

lim (W [x, kl ]) = lim lim rs (W [x, kl ])

l s

so

lim inf V x, n,

=0

n

2

Using these lemmas we obtain the following result.

Theorem 1.18. A homeomorphisms of a compact metric space has

an expansive probability measure if and only if it has an expansive

invariant probability measure.

Proof. Let be an expansive measure (with expansivity constant )

of a homeomorphism f : X X of a compact metric space X.

By Lemma 1.15 we have that fi is also an expansive probability

measure with expansivity constant (i Z). Therefore,

n =

n1

1 i

f ,

n i=0

n N+

expansivity constant . As X is compact there is a subsequence

nk such that nk converges to a Borel probability measure .

Since is clearly invariant we can apply Lemma 1.17 to this sequence

to obtain that is expansive.

11

denote by supp() the support of a Borel measure . Given a metric

space X and a map f : X X we dene the omega-limit set of

x X,

(x) = y X : y = lim f nk (x) for some sequence nk .

k

R(f ) = {x X : x (x)}.

With these denitions we have the following corollary. Denote by

supp() the support of a Borel measure of a metric space X.

Corollary 1.19. The recurrent (and hence the nonwandering) sets

of every homeomorphism with expansive probability measures of a

compact metric space is uncountable.

Proof. Let f : X X be a homeomorphism with an expansive

probability measure of a compact metric space X. By Theorem

1.18 we can assume that is invariant, and so, supp() R(f ) by the

Poincare Recurrent Theorem. If R(f ) were countable we would have

(supp()) (R(f )) = 0 which is absurd thus R(f ) is uncountable.

1.3

Equivalences

given measure. Hereafter all metric spaces X under consideration will

be compact unless otherwise stated. We also x a Borel probability

measure of X and a homeomorphism f : X X.

To start we observe an apparently weak denition of expansive

measure saying that is an expansive measure of f if there is > 0

such that ( (x)) = 0 for -a.e. x X. However, this denition

and the previous one are in fact equivalent by the following lemma.

Lemma 1.20. Let f : X X be a homeomorphism of a compact metric space X. Then, a Borel probability measure of X is

an expansive measure of f if and only if there is > 0 such that

( (x)) = 0 for -a.e. x X.

12

Proof. We only need to prove the if part. Let > 0 be such that

( (x)) = 0 for -a.e. x X. We shall prove that /2 is an

expansiveness constant of . Suppose by contradiction that it is

not so. Then, there is x0 X such that (/2 (x0 )) > 0. Denote

A = {x X : ( (x)) = 0} so (A) = 1. Since is a probability

measure we obtain A /2 (x0 )

= so there is y0 /2 (x0 ) such

that ( (y0 )) = 0.

Now, since y0 /2 (x0 ) we have /2 (x0 ) (y0 ). Indeed

d(f i (x), f i (x0 )) /2 (i N) implies

d(f i (x), f i (y0 )) d(f i (x), f i (x0 )) + d(f i (x0 ), f i (y0 ))

/2 + /2 = ,

i N

which is a contradiction. This proves the result.

In particular, we have the following corollary.

Corollary 1.21. Let f : X X be a homeomorphism of a compact

metric space X. Then, a Borel probability measure is an expansive

measure of f if and only if there is > 0 such that ( (x)) = 0 for

all x supp().

A direct application of Lemma 1.16 is the following version of a

well-known property of the expansive homeomorphisms (see Corollary 5.22.1-(ii) of [89]).

Proposition 1.22. Let f : X X a homeomorphism and be a

Borel probability measure of a compact metric space X. If n Z\{0},

then is an expansive measure of f if and only if it is an expansive

measure of f n .

Proof. We can assume that n > 0. First notice that Vf [x, n m, ]

Vf n [x, m, ]. If is an expansive measure of f n is expansive then by

Lemma 1.16 there is > 0 such that for every x X there is a sequence mj such that (Vf n [x, mj , ]) 0 as j . Therefore

(Vf [x, n mj , ]) 0 as j yielding lim inf n (Vf [x, n, ]) =

0. Since x is arbitrary we conclude that is expansive with constant

.

13

constant . Since X is compact and n is xed we can choose 0 < <

such that if d(x, y) , then d(f i (x), f i (y)) < for all n i n.

n

With this property one has f (x) f (x) for all x X thus is

an expansive measure of f n with constant .

One more equivalence is motivated by a well known condition for

expansiveness. Given metric spaces X and Y we always consider the

product metric in X Y dened by

d((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) = d(x1 , x2 ) + d(y1 , y2 ).

If and are measures in X and Y respectively we denote by

their product measure in X Y . If f : X X and g : Y Y we

dene their product f g : X Y X Y ,

(f g)(x, y) = (f (x), g(y)).

Notice that f g is a homeomorphism if f and g are. Denote by

= {(x, x) : x X} the diagonal of X X.

Given a map g of a metric space Y we call an invariant set I

isolated if there is a compact neighborhood U of it such that

I = {z U : g n (z) U, n Z}.

As is well known, a homeomorphism f of X is expansive if and only

if the diagonal is an isolated set of f f (e.g. [4]). To express the

corresponding version for expansive measures we introduce the following denition. Let be a Borel probability measure of Y . We call

an invariant set I of g -isolated if there is a compact neighborhood

U of I such that

({z Y : g n (z) U, n Z}) = 0.

With this denition we have the following result in which we write

2 = .

Theorem 1.23. Let f : X X be a homeomorphism of a compact

metric space X. Then, a Borel probability measure of X is an

expansive measure of f if and only if the diagonal is a 2 -isolated

set of f f .

14

} of . For simplicity we set g = f f .

We claim that

({x} (x)).

(1.4)

{z X X : g n (z) U , n Z} =

xX

In fact, take z = (x, y) in the left-hand side set. Then, for all

n Z there is pn X such that d(f n (x), pn ) + d(f n (y), pn )

so d(f n (x), f n (y)) for all n Z which implies y (x). Therefore z belongs to the right-hand side set. Conversely, if z = (x, y) is

in the right-hand side set then d(f n (x), f n (y)) for all n Z so

d(g n (x, y), (f n (x), f n (x))) = d(f n (x), f n (y)) for all n Z which

implies that z belongs to the left-hand side set. The claim is proved.

Let F be the characteristic map of the left-hand side set in (1.4).

It follows that F (x, y) = (x) (y) for all (x, y) X X where A if

the characteristic map of A X. So,

2 ({z X X : g n (z) U , n Z}) =

X

(x) (y)d(y)d(x).

(1.5)

follows that

X

(x) (y)d(y) = 0,

x X

Conversely, if 2 ({z X X : g n (z) U , n Z}) = 0 for some

> 0, then (1.5) implies that ( (x)) = 0 for -almost every x X.

Then, is expansive by Lemma 1.20. This ends the proof.

Our nal equivalence is given by using the idea of generators (see

[89]). Call a nite open covering A of X -generator of a homeomorphism f if for every bisequence {An : n Z} A one has

n

f (Cl(An )) = 0.

nZ

15

metric space X. Then, a Borel probability measure is an expansive

measure of f if and only if f has a -generator.

Proof. First suppose that is expansive and let be its expansivity

constant. Take A as the collection of the open -balls centered at

x X. Then, for any bisequence An A one has

f n (Cl(An )) (x),

x

f n (Cl(An )),

nZ

nZ

so

f n (Cl(An ))

( (x)) = 0.

nZ

Therefore, A is a -generator of f .

Conversely, suppose that f has a -generator A and let > 0 be

a Lebesgue number of A. If x X, then for every n Z there is

An A such that the closed -ball around f n (x) belongs to Cl(An ).

It follows that

f n (Cl(An ))

(x)

nN

1.4

Properties

dened the omega-limit set (z) of z. In the invertible case we also

dene the alpha-limit set

(z) = y X : y = lim f nk (z) for some sequence nk .

k

under a bijective map f : X X if both (z) and (z) reduce to

singleton.

Denote by A(f ) the set of points with converging semiorbits under

f.

16

n N+ and m N we dene A(x, y, n, m) as the set of points z X

satisfying

1

i

i

A(x, y, n, m) = z : max{d(f (z), x), d(f (z), y)} , i m .

n

An useful property of this set is given by the following lemma.

Lemma 1.25. For every bijective map f : X X of a separable

metric space X there is a sequence xk X satisfying

A(f )

A(xk , xk , n, m).

(1.6)

nN+ k,k ,mN+

A(f ) and n N+ . As z A(f ) there are points x, y such that

(z) = x and (z) = y. Then, there is m N+ such that

max{d(f i (z), x), d(f i (z), y)}

1

,

2n

i m.

max{d(x, xk ), d(y, xk )}

1

.

2n

Therefore,

d(f i (z), xk ) d(f i (z), x) + d(x, xk )

1

1

1

+

= ,

2n 2n

n

and, analogously,

d(f i (z), xk ) d(f i (z), x) + d(x, xk )

1

1

1

+

= ,

2n 2n

n

An old result by Reddy [74] is stated below. For completeness we

include its proof here (for another proof see Theorem 2.2.22 in [5]).

Theorem 1.26. The set of points with converging semiorbits under

a expansive homeomorphism of a compact metric space is countable.

17

statement. Since compact metric spaces are separable we can choose

that A(f )

a sequence xk as in Lemma 1.25. Suppose by contradiction

is uncountable. Applying (1.6) we see that

A(xk , xk , n, m)

+

k,k ,mN+

a positive integer n with n1 2e . Then, there are k, k , m N such

that A(xk , xk , n, m) is uncountable (and so innite). Therefore, as

X is compact, there are distinct z, w A(xk , xk , n, m) such that

d(f i (z), f i (w)) < e,

|i| m.

d(f i (z), f i (w)) d(f i (z), xk ) + d(f i (w), xk )

e e

+ =e

2 2

and

d(f i (z), f i (w)) d(f i (z), xk ) + d(f i (w), xk )

e e

+ = e,

|i| m.

2 2

Consequently w e (z) contradicting that e is an expansivity constant of f . Therefore A(f ) is countable and the proof follows.

In light of this result we can ask if there is a version of it for

expansive measures. Since countable sets corresponds naturally to

zero measure sets it seems natural to prove the following result. Its

proof follows by adapting the aforementioned proof of Theorem 1.26

to the measure theoretical context.

Theorem 1.27. The set of points with converging semiorbits under

a homeomorphism of a separable metric space has zero measure with

respect to any expansive measure.

Proof. Let f : X X the homeomorphism in the statement and xk

be a sequence as in Lemma 1.25. Suppose by contradiction that there

is an expansive measure such that (A(f )) > 0. Applying (1.6) we

get

A(xk , xk , n, m) > 0

n N+ .

k,k ,mN+

18

the previous inequality there are k, k , m N such that

(A(xk , xk , n, m)) > 0.

Let us prove that there is z A(xk , xk , n, m) and 0 > 0 satisfying

(A(xk , xk , n, m) B[z, ]) > 0,

0 < < 0 ,

(1.7)

Otherwise, for every z A(xk , xk , n, m) we could nd z > 0

such that

(A(xk , xk , n, m) B[z, z ]) = 0.

Clearly

z

B z,

: z A(xk , xk , n, m)

2

space we have that A(xk , xk , n, m) also does, and, since separable

metric spaces are Lindelof, we have that the above open covering has

a countable subcover {Bi : i N} (say). Therefore,

(A(xk , xk , n, m))

(A(xk , xk , n, m) Bi ) = 0

iN

(1.7).

On the other hand, as f is continuous, and both z and m are

xed, we can also nd 0 < 1 < 0 satisfying

d(f i (z), f i (w))

e

whenever |i| m and d(z, w) < 1 .

2

We claim that

A(xk , xk , n, m) B[z, 1 ] e (z).

Indeed, take w A(xk , xk , n, m) B[z, 1 ].

Since w B[z, 1 ] one has d(z, w) < 1 so

d(f i (w), f i (z)) e,

m i m.

19

1

n

e

2

one has

and

d(f i (w), f i (z)) d(f i (w), xk ) + d(f i (z), xk ) e,

|i| m.

All this together yield w e (z) and the claim follows. Therefore,

0 < (A(xk , xk , n, m) B[z, 1 ]) (e (z))

which is absurd since e is an expansivity constant. This ends the

proof.

Remark 1.28. If f is an expansive homeomorphism of a compact

metric space, then every non-atomic Borel probability measure is an

expansive measure of f . Then, Theorem 1.27 implies that the set

of points with converging semiorbits under f has zero measure with

respect to any non-atomic Borel probability measure. From this and

well-known measure-theoretical results [73] we obtain that the set of

points with converging semiorbits under f is countable. This provides

another proof of the Reddys result [74].

The following lemma will be useful in the next proof.

Lemma 1.29 (see Lemma 4 p. 72 in [16]). If f : X X is a

continuous map of a compact metric space X and (x) is nite for

some x X, then there is a periodic point z X of f such that

d(f n (x), f n (z)) 0 as n .

Proof. Take any nonempty proper closed subset F (x). We claim

that F Cl((x) \ F )

= . Otherwise there are open sets O1 , O2 such

that (x)\F O1 , F O2 and Cl(O2 )f (Cl(O1 )) = . For n large,

f n (x) belongs to O1 or O2 and in both for innitely many n s. Then,

there is an innite sequence nk with f nk (x) O1 and f nk +1 (x) O2 .

Any limit point y of f nk (x) satises y Cl(O1 ) f 1 (Cl(O2 )) thus

Cl(O2 ) f (Cl(O1 ))

= which is absurd. This proves the claim.

Since (x) is nite there is a periodic orbit P (x). If P

= (x)

we could apply the claim to the closed subset F = (x) \ P yielding

((x) \ P ) P

= which is absurd. Therefore, P = (x) from which

the result easily follows.

20

By heteroclinic point of a bijective map f : X X on a metric space X we mean any point for which both the alpha and the

omega-limit sets reduce to periodic orbits. The lemma below relates

homoclinic and points with converging semiorbits. Denote by Het(f )

the set of heteroclinic points of f .

Lemma 1.30. If f : X X is a homeomorphism of a compact

metric space X, then

A(f n ).

Het(f )

nN+

Proof. If x Het(f ), then both (x) and (x) are nite sets. Applying Lemma 1.29 we get a periodic point y such that d(f n (x), f n (y))

0 as n . Denoting by ny the period of y we get d(f kny (x), y) 0

as k and so f ny (x) = {y}. Analogously, f nz (x) = {z} for

some periodic point z of period nz . Taking n = ny nz we obtain

n N+ such that f n (x) = z and f n (x) = y so x A(f n ) and the

inclusion follows.

Theorem 1.27 and Lemma 1.30 have the following consequence.

Theorem 1.31. The set of heteroclinic points of a homemorphism in

a compact metric space has measure zero with respect to any expansive

measure.

Proof. Let f : X X be a homeomorphism of a compact metric

space. By Lemma 1.30 we have

that the set of heteroclinic points

A(f n ). Now, take any expansive

satises the inclusion Het(f )

nN+

measure of f n , and so, (A(f n )) = 0 for all n N+ by Theorem

1.27. Then, the inclusion above implies

(A(f n )) = 0

(Het(f ))

nN+

A consequence of the above result is given below.

21

a compact metric space has no expansive measures.

Proof. This follows from Theorem 1.31 since every point for such

homeomorphisms is heteroclinic.

(In the probability case this corollary is a particular case of Corollary 1.19).

Another consequence is the following version of Theorem 3.1 in

[86]. Denote by Per(f ) the set of periodic points of f .

Corollary 1.33. The set of periodic points of a homeomorphism of a

compact metric space has measure zero with respect to any expansive

measure.

Proof. Let be an expansive measure of a homeomorphism f of a

compact metric space. Denoting by Fix(f ) = {x X : f (x) = x} the

set of xed points of a map f we have Per(f ) = nN+ Fix(f n ). Now,

is an expansive measure of f n by Proposition 1.22 and every element

n

of Fix(f n ) is a heteroclinic point of f n thus

(Fix(f )) =n 0 for all n by

Theorem 1.27. Therefore, (Per(f )) nN+ (Fix(f )) = 0.

We nish this section by describing the expansive measures in dimension one. To start with we prove that there are no such measures

for homeomorphisms of compact intervals.

Theorem 1.34. A homeomorphism of a compact interval has no

expansive measures.

Proof. Suppose by contradiction that there is an expansive measure

for some homeomorphism f of I. Since f is continuous we have

that Fix(f )

= . Such a set is also closed since f is continuous,

so, its complement I\Fix(f ) in I consists of countably many open

intervals J. It is also clear that every point in J is a point with

converging semi-orbits therefore (I\ Fix(f )) = 0 by Theorem 1.27.

But (Fix(f )) = 0 by Corollary 1.33 so (I) = (Fix(f )) + (I\

Fix(f )) = 0 which is absurd.

Next, we shall consider the circle S 1 . Recall that an orientationpreserving homeomorphism of the circle S 1 is Denjoy if it is not

topologically conjugated to a rotation [40].

22

and only if it is Denjoy.

Proof. Let f be a Denjoy homeomorphism of S 1 . As is well known

f has no periodic points and exhibits a unique minimal set which

is a Cantor set [40]. In particular, is compact without isolated

points thus it exhibits a non-atomic Borel probability meeasure (c.f.

Corollary 6.1 in [73]). On the other hand, one sees as in Example 1.2

of [25] that f / is expansive so is an expansive measure of f /.

Then, we are done by Example 1.12.

Conversely, let be an expansive measure of a homeomorphism

f : S 1 S 1 and suppose by contradiction that f is not Denjoy. Then,

either f has periodic points or is conjugated to a rotation (c.f. [40]).

In the rst case we can assume by Proposition 1.22 that f has a xed

point. Then, we can cut open S 1 along the xed point to obtain an

expansive measure for some homeomorphism of I which contradicts

Theorem 1.34. In the second case we have that f is conjugated to

a rotation. Since is expansive it would follow from Example 1.13

that there are circle rotations with expansive measures. However,

such rotations cannot exist by Example 1.9 since they are isometries.

This contradiction proves the result.

In particular, there are no expansive measures for C 2 dieomorphisms of S 1 . Similarly, there are no such measures for dieomorphisms of S 1 with derivative of bounded variation.

1.5

The goal of this short section is to present the proof of some results

in expansive systems using the ours.

To start with we shall prove the following result.

Proposition 1.36. The set of periodic points of a measure-expansive

homeomorphism f : X X of a compact metric space X is countable.

Proof. Since Per(f ) = nN+ Fix(f n ) it suces to prove that Fix(f n )

is countable for all n N+ . Suppose by contradiction that Fix(f n ) is

23

is also closed, so, it is complete and separable with respect to the

induced topology. Thus, by Corollary 6.1 p. 210 in [73], there

is a non-atomic Borel probability measure in Fix(f n ). Taking

(A) = (Y A) for all borelian A of X we obtain a non-atomic

Borel probability measure of X satisfying (Fix(f n )) = 1. Since

Fix(f n ) Per(f ) we conclude that (Per(f )) = 1. However, is

an expansive measure of f thus (Per(f )) = 0 by Corollary 1.33, a

contradiction. This contradiction yields the result.

Since every expansive homeomorphism of a compact metric space

is measure-expansive the above proposition yields another proof of

the following result due to Utz (see Theorem 3.1 in [86]).

Corollary 1.37. The set of periodic points of an expansive homeomorphism of a compact metric space is countable.

A second result is as follows.

Proposition 1.38. Measure-expansive homeomorphisms of compact

intervals do not exist.

Proof. Suppose by contradiction that there is a measure-expansive

homeomorphism of a compact interval I. Since the Lebesgue measure

Leb of I is non-atomic we obtain that Leb is an expansive measure

of f . However, there are no such measures for such homeomorphisms

by Theorem 1.34.

From this we obtain another proof of the following result by Jacobson and Utz [46] (details in [19]).

Corollary 1.39. There are no expansive homeomorphisms of a compact interval.

The following lemma is motivated by the well known property

that for every homeomorphism f of a compact metric space X one

has that supp() (f ) for all invariant Borel probability measure

of f . Indeed, we shall prove that this is true also for all expansive

measure oif every homeomorphism of S 1 even in the noninvariant

case.

24

(f ) for every expansive measure of f .

Proof. Suppose by contradiction that there is x supp() \ (f ) for

some expansive measure of f . Let be an expansivity constant of

. Since x

/ (f ) we can assume that the collection of open intervals

f n (B(x, )) as n runs over Z is disjoint. Therefore, there is N N

such that the length of f n (B(x, )) is less than for |n| N .

From this and the continuity of f we can arrange > 0 such that

B(x, ) (x) therefore ( (x)) (B(x, )) > 0 as x supp().

This contradicts the expansiveness of and the result follows.

A direct consequence of this lemma is the following.

Corollary 1.41. A homeomorphism of S 1 has no expansive measures

supported on S 1 .

Proof. Suppose by contradiction that there is a homeomorphism f :

S 1 S 1 exhibiting an expansive measure with supp() = S 1 . By

Theorem 1.35 we have that f is Denjoy, and so, (f ) is nowhere

dense. However, we have by Lemma 1.40 that supp() (f ) so S 1

is nowhere dense too which is absurd.

This corollary implies immediately the following one.

Corollary 1.42. There are no measure-expansive homeomorphisms

of S 1 .

Proof. If there were such homeomorphisms in S 1 , then the Lebesgue

measure would be an expansive measure of some homeomorphism of

S 1 contradicting Corollary 1.41.

From this we obtain the following classical fact due to Jacobsen

and Utz [46]. Classical proofs can be found in Theorem 2.2.26 in [5],

Subsection 2.2 of [25], Corollary 2 in [74] and Theorem 5.27 of [89].

Corollary 1.43. There are no expansive homeomorphisms of S 1 .

25

1.6

Exercices

Exercice 1.44.

of a compact metric space is Borel measurable.

Exercice 1.45.

a unique expansive measure? (Just in case prove that such a measure is invariant).

Exercice 1.46.

Are there measure-expansive homeomorphisms of compact nonatomic metric spaces which are not countably-expansive?

Exercice 1.47.

expansive probability measure on a compact metric space also possesses ergodic expansive invariant probability measures.

Exercice 1.48.

Exercice 1.49.

It is well known that, for expansive homeomorphisms f on compact metric spaces, the entropy map h (f ) is uppersemicontinuous [89]. Are

the expansive measures for homeomorphisms on compact metric space uppersemicontinuity points of the corresponding entropy map?

Exercice 1.50.

expansive homeomorphisms has nite topological dimension [62]. Is the support

of an expansive measure of a homeomorphisms of a compact metric space nite

dimensional?

Exercice 1.51.

inf d(f n (x), f n (y)) > 0,

nZ

x X.

It is well known that a distal homeomorphism has zero topological entropy ([8],[36],

[68]). Are there distal homeomorphisms with expansive measures of compact metric

spaces.

Exercice 1.52.

which is proximal (i.e. lim inf n d(f n (x), f n (y)) = 0) but not asymptotic (i.e.

lim supn d(f n (x), f n (y)) > 0). We say that f is almost distal if it has no LiYorke pairs. Every distal homeomorphism is almost distal but not conversely. On the

other hand, almost distal maps on compact metric space have some similarities with

the distal ones as, in particular, all of them have zero topological entropy [15]. Prove

(or disprove) that every almost distal homeomorphism of a compact metric space has

expansive measures.

26

Exercice 1.53.

Prove that the space of expansive measures Mexp (f ) of a measurable map f : X X on a metric space X is a cone, i.e., + Mexp (f )

whenever R+ and , Mexp (f ). Furthermore, if : X Y is a conjugation

between f and another measurable map g : Y Y of a metric space Y , then

f (Mexp (f )) = Mexp (g).

Exercice 1.54.

circle S 1 , then the Lebesgue measure is expansive for f if and only if f is expansive.

Exercice 1.55.

dXY ((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) = max{dX (x1 , y1 ), dY (x2 , y2 )} in X Y . With respect

to this metric prove that if and are expansive measures of the homeomorphisms

f : X X and g : Y Y , then so is the product measure of X Y for the

product map f g. Give a counterexample for the converse (see Exercice 1.56).

Exercice 1.56.

Prove that a Borel measure of X is expansive for f if and only if the product

measure Leb of with the Lebesgue measure Leb of [0, 1] is expansive for the

product map f Id : X [0, 1] X [0, 1], where Id is the identity map of [0, 1].

Exercice 1.57.

2-disk D R2 for which the alpha-limit set (x) = (0, 0) for all x Int(D) has no

expansive measures.

Exercice 1.58.

X is proximal if inf nZ d(f n (x), f n (y)) = 0 for every x, y X. Find examples

measures.

Exercice 1.59.

metric space X pointwise expansive for a homeomorphism f : X X if for every

x X there is x > 0 such that (x (x)) = 0. Investigate the vality (or not) of the

results of this chapter for pointwise expansive measures instead of expansive ones.

metric invariant in the following sense: If f : X X is a homeomorphism of a

metric space (X, d) and d is a metric of X equivalent to d, then a Borel measure is

expansive for f if and only if it does for f : (X, d ) (X, d ).

Chapter 2

Finite expansivity

2.1

Introduction

We already seem that every expansive homeomorphism of a nonatomic metric space is measure-expansive (i.e. it satises that every

non-atomic Borel probability measure is an expansive measure). It is

then natural to ask if the converse property holds, i.e., is a measureexpansive homeomorphism of a non-atomic metric space expansive?

The results of this chapter will provide negative answer for this question even on compact metric spaces (see Exercice 3.44).

2.2

Preliminaries

set and n be a nonnegative integer. Denote by #A the cardinality of

A. The set of metrics of X (including -metrics [32]) will be denoted

by M(X). Sometimes we say that M(X) has a certain property

whenever its underlying metric space (X, ) does. For example, is

compact whenever (X, ) is, a point a is -isolated in A X if it is

isolated in A with respect to the metric space (X, ), etc.. The closure

operation in (X, ) will be denoted by Cl (). A map f : X X

is a -homeomorphism if it is a homeomorphism of the metric space

(X, ). If x X and > 0 we denote by B [x, ] the closed -ball

27

28

Given M(X) and A X we say that is n-discrete on A if

there is > 0 such that #(B[x, ]A) n for all x A. Equivalently,

if there is > 0 such that #(B[x, ] A) n for all x X. When

necessary we emphasize by saying that is n-discrete on A with

constant . We say that is n-discrete if it is n-discrete on X. Clearly

is n-discrete on A if and only if the restricted metric /A M(A)

dened by /A(a, b) = (a, b) for a, b A is n-discrete.

Evidently, there are no 0-discrete metrics and the 1-discrete metrics are precisely the discrete ones. Since every n-discrete metric is

m-discrete for n m one has that every discrete metric is n-discrete.

There are however n-discrete metrics which are not discrete. Moreover, we have the following example (1 ).

Example 2.1. Every innite set X carries an n-discrete metric

which is not (n 1)-discrete.

Indeed, if n = 1 we simply choose as the standard discrete

metric (x, y) dened by (x, y) = 1 whenever x

= y. Otherwise, we

can arrange n disjoint sequences x1k , x2k , xnk in X and dene by

1

(if (x, y) = (xik , xjk ) for some k N and 1 i

= j n)

(x, y) = 4+k

and (x, y) = (x, y) (if not).

On the one hand, is n-discrete with constant = 14 since B x, 14

is either {x1k , , xnk } or {x} (depending on the case) and, on the

other, is not (n 1)-discrete since for all > 0 the set of points x

for which #B[x, ] = n is innite (e.g. take x = x1k with k large).

Remark 2.2. None of the metrics in Example 2.1 can be compact

for, otherwise, we could cover X with nitely many balls of radius

= 1/4 which would imply that X is nite.

In the sequel we present some basic properties of n-discrete metrics. Clearly if is n-discrete on A, then it is also n-discrete on B for

all B A. Moreover, if is n-discrete on A and m-discrete on B,

then it is (n + m)-discrete on A B. A better conclusion is obtained

when the distance between A and B is positive.

Lemma 2.3. If is n-discrete on A, m-discrete on B and (A, B) >

0, then is max{n, m}-discrete on A B.

1 communicated

29

such that #(B[x, ] A) n (for x

2

A) and #(B[x, ] B) m (for x B). If x A then B[x, ] B =

so #(B[x, ] (A B)) = #(B[x, ] A) n

because < (A,B)

2

max{n, m}. If x B then B[x, ] A = because < (A,B)

so

2

#(B[x, ] (A B)) = #(B[x, ] B) m max{n, m}. Then, is

max{n, m}-discrete on A B with constant .

Lemma 2.4. If is n-discrete on A, then A is -closed and so

(A, B) > 0 for every -compact subset B with A B = .

Proof. We only have to prove the rst part of the lemma. By hypothesis there is > 0 such that #(B[x, ] A) n for all x A. Let xk

be a sequence in A converging to some y X. It follows that there is

k0 N+ such that xk B[y, /2] for all k k0 . Triangle inequality

implies {xk : k k0 } B[xk0 , ] A and so {xk : k k0 } is a nite

set. As xk y we conclude that y A hence A is closed.

Now we prove that n-discreteness is preserved under addition of

nite subsets.

Proposition 2.5. If is n-discrete on A, then is n-discrete on

A F for all nite F X.

Proof. We can assume that AF = . As F is nite (hence compact)

we can apply Lemma 2.4 to obtain (A, F ) > 0. As F is nite one

has that is 1-discrete on F so is n-discrete on A F by Lemma

2.3.

For the next result we introduce some basic denitions. Let f :

X X be a map. We say that A X is invariant if f (A) = A. If

f is bijective and x X we denote by Of (x) = {f n (x) : n Z} the

orbit of x. An isometry (or -isometry to emphasize ) is a bijective

map f satisfying (f (x), f (y)) = (x, y) for all x, y X.

The following elementary fact will be useful later one: If f is a

-isometry and a X satises that a is -isolated in Of (a), then is

discrete on Of (a). Indeed, if were not discrete on Of (a), then there

are integer sequences nk

= mk such that (f nk (a), f mk ) 0 as k

. As f is an isometry one has that (f nk (a), f mk (a)) = (a, f lk (a)),

where lk = mk mk , so (a, f lk (a)) 0 for some sequence lk Z\{0}

thus a is not -isolated in Of (a).

30

all x, y X. We write d to indicate lower semicontinuity of the

map : X X [0, ] with respect to the product metric d d in

X X. Equivalently, the following property holds for all sequences

d

xk , yk in X and all > 0, where xk x indicates convergence in

(X, d):

d

xk x,

yk y

y B [x, ].

(2.1)

Hereafter we denote by F ix(f ) = {x X : f (x) = x} the set

of xed points of f , and by P er(f ) = mN+ F ix(f m ) the set of

periodic points of f .

The following proposition is inspired on Lemma 2 p. 176 of [89].

and

yk B [xk , ]

d d. Let f : X X be a map which is simultaneously

a d-homeomorphism and a -isometry. If A is an invariant set

with countable complement which is n-discrete with respect to and

P er(f ) A is countable, then is n-discrete on A Of (a) for all

a X.

Proof. We can assume a

A (otherwise A Of (a) = A) so (A, a) >

0 by Lemma 2.4. Since f is a -isometry and A is invariant one has

(A, f i (a)) = (A, a) so (A, Of (a)) > 0. Then, by Lemma 2.3, it

suces to prove that is n-discrete on Of (a).

Suppose that it is not so. Then, as previously remarked, a is non

-isolated in Of (a). Since d we have that a is also non -isolated

in Of (a). As f is a d-homeomorphism we conclude that Of (a) is a

nonempty -perfect set. As d is compact (and so FII ) we obtain that

Cld (Of (a)) is uncountable. As X \ A is countable we conclude that

Cld (Of (a)) A is uncountable. Choose x Cld (Of (a)) A. Then,

there is a sequence lk Z such that

d

f lk (a) x.

(2.2)

Since is not n-discrete on Of (a) we can arrange dierent integers

N1 , , Nn+1 satisfying

f Nj (a) B [f N1 (a), ],

j {1, , n + 1}.

31

f Nj (f lk (a)) B [f N1 (f lk (a)), ],

j {1, , n + 1},

k N.

applying (2.1) and (2.2) to obtain

f Nj (x) B [f N1 (x), ],

j {1, , n + 1}.

invariant. Therefore,

{f N1 (x), , f Nn+1 (x)} B [f N1 (x), ] A.

But #(B [f N1 (x), ]A) n by the choice of so the above inclusion

implies f Nj (x) = f Nr (x) for some dierent indexes j, r {1, , n +

1}. As the integers N1 , , Nn+1 are dierent we conclute that x

P er(f ) and so x P er(f ) A. Therefore,

Cld (Of (a)) A P er(f ) A.

As Cld (Of (a)) A is uncountable we conclude that P er(f ) A also

is thus we get a contradiction. This proves the result.

Corollary 2.7. Let d, M(X) be such that d is compact and d

d. Let f : X X be a map which is simultaneously a dhomeomorphism and a -isometry. If P er(f ) is countable and there

l

are a1 , , al X such that is n-discrete on X \ i=1 Of (ai ), then

is n-discrete.

l

Proof. Dene the invariant sets Aj = X \ i=j Of (ai ) for 1 j l.

l

As X \ Aj = i=j Of (ai ) one has that Aj has countable complement

for all 1 j l. On the other hand, is n-discrete on A1 by

hypothesis and P er(f ) A1 is countable (since P er(f ) is) so is

n-discrete on A2 = A1 Of (a1 ) by Proposition 2.6. By the same

reasons if is n-discrete on Aj , then also is on Aj+1 = Aj Of (ai ).

Then, the result follows by induccion.

32

2.3

n-expansive systems

To motivate the denition we recall some classical denitions. Let

(X, d) be a metric space and A X. A map f : X X is positively

expansive on A if there is > 0 such that for every x, y A with

x

= y there is i N such that d(f i (x), f i (y)) > , or, equivalently,

if {y A : d(f i (x), f i (y)) , i N} = {x} for all x A. On the

other hand, a bijective map f : X X is expansive on A if there is

> 0 such that {y A : d(f i (x), f i (y)) , i Z} = {x} for all

x A. If A = X we recover the notions of positively expansive and

expansive maps respectively. These denitions suggest the following

one.

Denition 2.8. Given n N+ a bijective map (resp. map) f is nexpansive (resp. positively n-expansive) on A if there is > 0 such

that

#{y A : d(f i (x), f i (y)) , i Z} n

(resp. #{y A : d(f i (x), f i (y)) , i N} n)

x A. If case A = X we say that f is n-expansive (resp. positively

n-expansive).

Clearly the 1-expansive bijective maps are precisely the expansive

ones (which in turn are n-expansive for all n N+ ).

In the sequel we introduce two useful operators. For every f :

X X and d M(X) we dene the pull-back metric

f (d)(x, y) = d(f (x), f (y))

(clearly f (d) M(X) if and only if f is 1-1). Using it we can dene

the operator L+

f : M(X) M(X) by

i

L+

f (d) = sup f (d),

iN

d M(X).

Lf (d) = sup fi (d),

iZ

d M(X).

33

Lemma 2.9. If f is bijective, then d Lf (d) and f is a Lf (d)isometry. If, in addition, f is a d-homeomorphism, then Lf (d) d.

Proof. The rst inequality is evident. As

f (Lf (d))(x, y) =

sup d(f i+1 (x), f i+1 (y)) = sup d(f i (x), f i (y)) = Lf (d)(x, y)

iZ

iZ

Now we prove Lf (d) d whenever f is a d-homeomorphism. Suppose

d

i Z the latter inequality implies d(f i (xk ), f i (yk )) for all k. As

f is a d-homeomorphism one can take the limit as k in the last

inequality to obtain d(f i (x), f i (y)) . As i Z is arbitrary we

obtain Lf (d)(x, y) which together with (2.2) implies the result.

These operators give the link between discreteness and expansiveness by the following result. Hereafter we shall write f is (positively)

n-expansive (on A) with respect to d in order to emphazise the metric

d in Denition 2.8.

Lemma 2.10. The following properties hold for all f : X X,

A X and d M(X):

1. f is positively n-expansive on A with respect to d if and only if

L+

f (d) is n-discrete on A.

2. If f is bijective, f is n-expansive on A with respect to d if and

only if Lf (d) is n-discrete on A.

Proof. Clearly for all x X and > 0 one has

+

so

#({y A : d(f (x), f (y)) ,

i

i N},

i N}) n

which proves the equivalence (1). The proof of the equivalence (2) is

analogous.

34

non-trivial examples of positively n-expansive maps. More precisely,

we prove that every bijective map f : X X with at least n nonperiodic points (n 2) carries a metric making it continuous positively n-expansive but not positively (n 1)-expansive. Indeed, by

hypothesis there are x1 , , xn X such that f i (xj )

= f k (xj ), for

all 1 j n and i

= k N, and f i (xj )

= f i (xk ) for all i N and

1 j

= k n. Dene the sequences x1k , , xnk in X by xik = f k (xi )

for 1 i n and k N. Clearly these sequences are disjoint thus

they induce a metric in X which is n-discrete but not (n 1)discrete as in Example 2.1. On the other hand, a straightforward

computation yields L+

f () = thus f is continuous (in fact Lips+

chitz) for . Since is n-discrete and = L+

f () one has that Lf ()

is n-discrete so f is positively n-expansive by Lemma 2.10. Since

is not (n 1)-discrete and = L+

f () the same lemma implies that

f is not positively (n 1)-expansive.

Notice however that none of the above metrics is compact (see

for instance Remark 2.2). This fact leads the question as to whether

a bijective map can carry a compact metric making it positively nexpansive but not positively (n 1)-expansive. Indeed, the following

result gives a partial positive answer for this question.

Proposition 2.11. For every k N+ there is a homeomorphism fk

of a compact metric space (Xk , k ) which is positively 2k -expansive

but not positively (2k 1)-expansive.

Proof. To start with we recall that a Denjoy map of the circle S 1 is a

nontransitive homeomorphism of S 1 with irrational rotation number.

As is well known [40] every Denjoy map h exhibits a unique minimal

set Eh which is also a Cantor set.

Hereafter we x the standard Riemannian metric l of S 1 . We shall

prove that h/Eh is positively 2-expansive with respect to l/Eh . Let

be half of the length of the largest interval I in the complement

S 1 \ Eh and 0 < < .

+

We claim that Int(B Lh (l) [x, ]) Eh = for all x Eh . Oth+

erwise, there is some z Int(B Lh (l) [x, ]) Eh . Pick w I (thus

w Eh ). Since Eh is minimal there is a sequence nk such

that hnk (w) z. Now, the interval sequence {hn (I) : n N}

35

as k . It turns out that there is some integer k such that

+

+

hnk (I) B Lh (l) [x, ]. From this and the fact that h(B Lh (l) [x, ])

+

+

B Lh (l) [h(x), ] one sees that I B Lh (l) [hnk (x), ] which is clearly

absurd because the length of I is greather than > 2. This contradiction proves the claim.

+

Since B Lh (l) [x, ] reduces to closed interval (possibly trivial) the

+

claim implies that B Lh (l) [x, ] Eh consists of at most two points.

It follows that L+

h (l) is 2-discrete on Eh (with constant ), so, h/Eh

is positively 2-expansive with respect to l/Eh by Lemma 2.10. Since

there are no positively expansive homeomorphisms on innite compact metric spaces (e.g. [28]) one sees that h/Eh cannot be positively

expansive with respect to l/Eh . Taking X1 = Eh , 1 = l/Eh and

f1 = h/Eh we obtain the result for k = 1. To obtain the result for

k 2 we shall proceed according to the following straightforward

construction.

Take copies E1 , E2 of Eh and recall the map

max{, } : M(E1 ) M(E2 ) M(E1 E2 )

dened by

max{d1 , d2 }(x, y) = max{d1 (x1 , y1 ), d2 (x2 , y2 )}

for all x = (x1 , x2 ) and y = (y1 , y2 ) in E1 E2 . One clearly sees that

B max{d1 ,d2 } [x, ] = B d1 [x1 , ] B d2 [x2 , ],

x E1 E2 , > 0.

h2 : E1 E2 E1 E2 , (h1 h2 )(x) = (h1 (x1 ), h2 (x2 )). It turns

out that

(h1 h2 ) (max{d1 , d2 }) = max{h1 (d1 ), h2 (d2 )}

so

+

+

L+

h1 h2 (max{d1 , d2 }) = max{Lh1 (d1 ), Lh2 (d2 )}

thus

+

B Lh1 h2 (max{d1 ,d2 }) [x, ] = B Lh1 (d1 ) [x1 , ] B Lh2 (d2 ) [x2 , ].

36

respectively. As hi is positively 2-expansive with respect to di one

has that L+

hi (di ) is 2-discrete for i = 1, 2. We can choose the same

constant for i = 1, 2 ( say) thus,

+

#(B

L+

h (d1 )

1

[x1 , ]) #(B

L+

h (d2 )

2

[x2 , ]) 22 ,

x E1 E2 . (2.3)

It follows from (2.3) and Lemma 2.10 that h1 h2 (which is clearly

a homeomorphism) is positively 22 -expansive map with respect to

L+

(max{d ,d })

1 2

max{d1 , d2 }. One can see that #(B h1 h2

[x, ]) = 22 for

innitely many xs and arbitrarily small thus h1 h2 cannot be

positively 22 1-expansive. Taking X2 = E1 E2 , 2 = max{d1 , d2 }

and f2 = h1 h2 we obtain the result for k = 2.

By repeating this argument we obtain the result for arbitrary

k N+ taking X2 = E1 Ek , k = max{d1 , , dk } and

fk = h1 hk .

establish the following lemma which is well-known among expansive

systems (e.g. Lemma 1 in [89]).

Lemma 2.12. If a homeomorphism f of a metric space (X, d) is

n-expansive on A, then P er(f ) A is countable.

Proof. It follows from the hypothesis and Lemma 2.10 that there is

> 0 such that #(B Lf (d) [x, ] A) n for all x X.

First we prove that f m is n-expansive on A, m N+ . Observe

that f is continuous since d is compact so there is > 0 such that

d(x, y) implies d(f i (x), f i (y)) for all integer m i m.

Then, B Lf m (d) [x, ] B Lf (d) [x, ] for all x X, so, #(B Lf m (d) [x, ]

A) #(B Lf (d) [x, ] A) n for all x A. Therefore, Lf m (d) is ndiscrete on A (with constant ) which implies that f m is n-expansive

on A by Lemma 2.10.This proves the assertion.

Since P er(f ) = mN+ F ix(f m ) by the previous assertion we

only have to prove that F ix(f )A is nite whenever f is n-expansive

on A. To prove it suppose that there is an innite sequence of xed

37

d

for some x X. On the other hand, one clearly has Lf (d) = d in

F ix(f ) thus, by the triangle inequality on x, there is n0 N such that

xn B Lf (d) [xn0 , ] for all n n0 . Thus, #(B Lf (d) [xn0 , ] A) =

which contradicts the choice of above. This ends the proof.

2.4

The results

In this section we state and prove our main results. The rst one

establishes that there are arbitrarily large values of n for which there

are innite compact metric spaces carrying positively n-expansive

homeomorphisms. As is well known, this is not true in the positively

expansive case (see for instance [28]).

Theorem 2.13. For every k N+ there is an innite compact metric space (Xk , k ) carrying positively 2k -expansive homeomorphisms

which are not positively (2k 1)-expansive.

Proof. Take Xk , k and fk as in Proposition 2.11. As fk is not positively (2k 1)-expansive one has that Xk is innite.

From this we obtain the following corollary.

Corollary 2.14. There are compact metric spaces without isolated

points exhibiting homeomorphism which are not positively expansive

but for which every non-atomic Borel probability measure is positively

expansive.

Our second result generalizes the one in [12].

Theorem 2.15. A map (resp. bijective map) of a metric space (X, d)

is positively n-expansive (resp. n-expansive) if and only if it is positively n-expansive (resp. n-expansive) on X \ F for some nite subset

F.

Proof. Obviously we only have to prove the if part. We do it in

the positively n-expansive case as the n-expansive case follows analogously. Suppose that a map f of X is positively n-expansive on X \F

for some nite subset F . Then, L+

f (d) is n-discrete on A = X \ F by

Lemma 2.10. Since F is nite Proposition 2.5 implies that L+

f (d) is

n-discrete so f is positively n-expansive by Lemma 2.10.

38

Finally we state our last result which extends a well-known property of expansive homeomorphisms (c.f. [85],[89]).

Theorem 2.16. A necessary and sucient condition for a homemomorphism f of a compact metric space (X, d) to be n-expansive is

l

that f is n-expansive on X \ i=1 Of (ai ) for some a1 , , al X.

Proof. We only have to prove the if part. By hypothesis f is a dhomeomorphism so f is an Lf (d)-isometry and d Lf (d) d by

l

Lemma 2.9. Since f is n-expansive on A = X \ i=1 Of (ai ) one has

l

that P er(f )A is countable by Lemma 2.12. As X \A = i=1 Of (ai )

is clearly countable we conclude that P er(f ) is countable. On the

l

other hand, f is n-expansive on X \ i=1 Of (ai ) so Lf (d) is n-discrete

l

on X \ i=1 Of (ai ) by Lemma 2.10. Then, Lf (d) is n-discrete by

Corollary 2.7 and so f is n-expansive by Lemma 2.10.

2.5

Exercices

Exercice 2.17.

Exercice 2.18.

Prove that for every integer n 2 there is an n-expansive

Exercice 2.19.

Prove that every compact metric space with n-expansive homeomorphisms (for some n N+ ) has nite topological dimension and that the minimal

sets of such a homeomorphism are zero-dimensional (for n = 1 see Ma

n

e [62]).

metric space is pointwise expansive, i.e., for every x X there is x > 0 such that

x (x) = {x} (see [75]).

Exercice 2.21.

phisms dened by Reddy in Section 3 of [75] are 2-expansive. Modify these examples

to nd for all n 2 an n-expansive homeomorphism of a compact metric space which

is not pointwise expansive.

Exercice 2.22.

Are there dierentiable manifolds supporting n-expansive homeomorphisms which are not (n 1)-expansive?

Exercice 2.23.

39

compact metric space X has measures of maximal entropy, i.e., a Borel measure

satisfying the identity h (f ) = h(f ) where h (f ) and h(f ) denotes the metric and

topological entropies of f (for n = 1 see [38]).

Exercice 2.24.

Exercice 2.25.

negative for n = 1, see Hiraide [42] and Lewowicz [59]).

Chapter 3

Positively expansive

measures

3.1

Introduction

Ergodic measures with positive entropy for continuous maps on compact metric spaces have been studied in the recent literature. For

instance, [14] proved that the set of points belonging to a proper

asymptotic pair (i.e. points whose stable classes are not singleton)

constitute a full measure set. Moreover, [43] proved that if f is a

homeomorphism with positive entropy h (f ) with respect to one of

such measures , then there is a full measure set A such that for all

x A there is a closed subset A(x) in the stable class of x satisfying

h(f 1 , A(x)) h (f ), where h(, ) is the Bowens entropy operation

[10]. We can also mention [27] which proved that every ergodic endomorphism on a Lebesgue probability space having positive entropy

on nite measurable partitions formed by continuity sets is pairwise

sensitive (see also Exercice 3.48).

In this chapter we introduce the notion of positively expansive

measure and prove that every ergodic measure with positive entropy

on a compact metric space is positively expansive. Using this result

we will prove that, on compact metric spaces, every stable class has

measure zero with respect to any ergodic measure with positive en40

41

the use of positively expansive measures that every continuous map

on a compact metric space exhibiting countably many stable classes

has zero topological entropy (a similar result with dierent techniques

has been obtained in [45] but in the transitive case). Still in the compact case we prove that every continuous map which is Lyapunov

stable on its recurrent set has zero topological entropy too (this is

known but for one-dimensional maps [35], [81], [92]). Finally we use

expansive measures to give necessary conditions for a continuous map

on a complete separable metric space to be chaotic in the sense of Li

and Yorke [60]. Most results in this chapter were obtained in [6] and

[7].

3.2

Denition

In this chapter we introduce the notion of positively expansive measure. First we recall the following denition.

Denition 3.1. A continuous map f : X X of a metric space

X is positively expansive (c.f. [33]) if there is > 0 such that

for every pair of distinct points x, y X there is n N such that

d(f n (x), f n (y)) > . Equivalently, f is positively expansive if there

is > 0 such that (x) = {x}, where

(x) = {y X : d(f i (x), f i (y)) , i N}

(again we write f (x) to indicate dependence on f ).

This motivates the following denition

Denition 3.2. A positively expansive measure of a measurable map

f : X X is a Borel probability measure for which there is > 0

such that ( (x)) = 0 for all x X. The constant will be referred

to an positive expansivity constant of .

As in the invertible case we have that a measure is a positively expansive measure of f if and only if there is > 0 such that

( (x)) = 0 for -a.e. x X. An atomic measures cannot be

an expansive measure of any map and every non-atomic Borel probability measure is a positively expansive measure of any is positively

expansive map.

42

compact metric spaces for which every non-atomic measure is expansive (e.g. an n-expansive homeomorphism with n 2). The homeomorphism f (x) = 2x in R exhibits positively expansive measures (e.g.

the Lebesgue measure) but not positively expansive invariant ones.

Contrary to what happen in the expansive case ([79], [77]), there

are innite compact metric spaces supporting homeomorphisms with

positively expansive measures (extreme cases will be discussed in Exercice 3.43). On the other hand, a necessary and sucient for a

measure to be positively expansive is given as in the homeomorphism

case.

We shall need a previous result stated as follows. Let f : X X

be a measurable map of a metric space X. Given x X, n N+ and

> 0 we dene

B[x, n, ] =

n1

(3.1)

i=0

(x) =

B[x, n, ].

(3.2)

n=1

( (x)) = lim (B[x, , n])

n

From this we obtain the pointwise convergence

= lim ,n

n

(3.3)

(x) = ( (x))

and

(3.4)

that

for all x X.

(3.5)

lim inf (B[x, n, ]) = 0,

n

43

of f , if and only if it is a positively expansive measure of f n . The

proof of these assertions is analogous to the corresponding results for

homeomorphisms (see exercices 3.34 and 3.35).

Next we present the following lemma dealing with the measurability of the map .

Lemma 3.4. If f : X X is a continuous map of a compact metric

space X and is a nite Borel measure of X, then is a measurable

map for every > 0.

Proof. Fix > 0, n N+ and dene

Dn = {(x, y) X X : d(f i (x), f i (y)) ,

0 i n 1}.

X. Since f is continuous we have that Dn is closed in X X with respect to the product topology. From this we obtain Dn B(X X).

But since X is compact the product -algebra B(X) B(X) satises

B(X)B(X) = B(X X) (e.g. Lemma 6.4.2 in [17]). Therefore Dn

B(X)B(X). This allows us to apply the Fubini Theorem

(e.g. The

orem 3.4.1 in [17]) to conclude that the map x

X

Dn (x, y)d(y)

But it follows from the denition of Dn that

Dn (x, y)d(y)

,n (x) =

X

pointwise limit of measurable functions and so measurable.

As in the expansive case we have the following observation for

bijective maps f : X X, namely,

f ( (x)) (f (x)),

(x, ) X R+ .

Lemma 3.5. Let f : X X be a homeomorphism of a metric space

X. If is an expansive measure with expansivity constant of f ,

then so is f1 .

44

Lemma 1.16) we can obtain the following result.

Lemma 3.6. If f : X X is a homeomorphism of a metric space

X, then every invariant measure of f which is the limit (with respect

to the weak-* topology) of a sequence of positively expansive probability measures with a common expansivity constant of f is positively

expansive for f .

Using this lemma we obtain the following result closely related to

Example 3.3.

Theorem 3.7. A homeomorphism of a compact metric space has

positively expansive probability measures if and only if it has positively

expansive invariant probability measures.

Proof. Let be a positively expansive measure with positive expansivity constant of a homeomorphism f : X X of a compact metric

space X. By Lemma 3.5 we have that f1 is a positively expansive

measure with positive expansivity constant of f . Therefore, fi is

a positively expansive measure with positively expansivity constant

of f (i N), and so,

n =

n1

1 i

f ,

n i=0

n N+

common expansivity constant . As X is compact there is a subsequence nk such that nk converges to a Borel probability

measure . Since is clearly invariant for f 1 and f is a homeomorphism we have that is also an invariant measure of f . Then, we

can apply Lemma 3.6 to this sequence to obtain that is a positively

expansive measure of f .

An equivalent condition for positively -expansiveness is given

using the idea of positive generators as in Lemma 3.3 of [26]. Call

a nite open covering A of X positive -generator of f if for every

sequence {An : n N} A one has

n

f (Cl(An )) = 0.

nN

45

Proposition 3.8. Let f : X X be a continuous map of a compact

metric space X. Then, a Borel probability measure of X is a positively

invariant measure of f if and only if if f has a positive -generator.

We shall use this proposition to obtain examples of positively

expansive measures. If M is a closed manifold we call a dierentiable

map f : M M volume expanding if there are constants K > 0

and > 1 such that |det(Df n (x))| Kn for all x M and n

N. Denoting by Leb the Lebesgue measure we obtain the following

proposition.

Proposition 3.9. The Lebesgue measure Leb is a positively expansive measure of every volume expanding map of a closed manifold.

Proof. If f is volume expanding there are n0 N and > 1 such

that g = f n0 satises |det(Dg(x))| for all x M . Then, for all

x M there is x > 0 such that

Leb(g 1 (B[x, ])) 1 Leb(B[x, ]),

x M, 0 < < x .

(3.6)

Let be half of the Lebesgue number of the open covering {B(x, x ) :

x M } of M . By (3.6) any nite open covering of M by -balls

is a positive Leb-generator, so, Leb is positively expansive for g by

Proposition 3.8. Since g = f n0 we conclude that Leb is a positively

expansive measure of f (see the remark after (3.5)).

As in the homeomorphism case we obtain an equivalent condition

for positively expansiveness using the diagonal. Given a map g of a

metric space Y and a Borel probability in Y we say that I Y is

a -repelling set if there is a neighborhood U of I satisfying

({z Y : g n (z) U, n N}) = 0.

As in the homeomorphism case we can prove the following.

Proposition 3.10. Let f : X X be a continuous map of a compact

metric space X. Then, a Borel probability measure of X is a positively

expansive for f if and only if the diagonal is a 2 -repelling set of

f f.

46

expansive measures which is analogous to the expansive case (c.f.

Lemma 1.20).

Lemma 3.11. A Borel probability measure is positively expansive

for a measurable map f if and only if there is > 0 such that

( (x)) = 0,

-a.e. x X.

(3.7)

This lemma together with the corresponding denition for expansive maps suggests the following.

Denition 3.12. A positively expansive constant of a Borel probability measure is a constant > 0 satisfying (3.7).

3.3

Properties

In this section we select the properties of positively expansive measures we shall use later one. For the rst one we need the following

denition.

Denition 3.13. Given a map f : X X and p X we dene

W s (p), the stable set of p, as the set of points x for which the pair

(p, x) is asymptotic, i.e.,

W s (p) = x X : lim d(f n (x), f n (p)) = 0 .

n

The following shows that every stable class is negligible with respect to any expansive invariant measure.

Proposition 3.14. The stable classes of a measurable map have measure zero with respect to any positively expansive invariant measure.

Proof. Let f : X X a measurable map and be a positively expansive invariant measure. Denoting by B[, ] the closed ball operation

one gets

1

s

k

k

f

B f (p),

.

W (p) =

i

+

iN

jN kj

47

As clearly

f k B f k (p),

jN kj

1

i+1

jN kj

1

f k B f k (p),

,

i

(i N+ ) we obtain

(W s (p)) lim

jN

kj

1

.

f k B f k (p),

i

(3.8)

kj

1

f k B f k (p),

= f j 1i (f j (p))

i

so

kj

1

=

f k B f k (p),

i

f j 1i (f j (p)) = 1i (f j (p))

is a expansivity

constant of (c.f. Denition 3.12) we obtain

1i (f j (p)) = 0 so

kj

1

f k B f k (p),

= 0.

i

For the second property we will use the following denition [35].

Denition 3.15. A map f : X X is said to be Lyapunov stable on

A X if for any x A and any > 0 there is a neighborhood U (x)

of x such that d(f n (x), f n (y)) < whenever n 0 and y U (x) A.

48

(Notice the dierence between this denition and the corresponding one in [81].) The following implies that measurable sets where the

map is Lyapunov stable are negligible with respect to any expansive

measure (invariant or not).

Proposition 3.16. If a measurable map of a separable metric space

is Lyapunov stable on a measurable set A, then A has measure zero

with respect to any positively expansive measure.

Proof. Fix a measurable map f : X X of a separable metric space

X, a positively expansive measure and > 0. Since is regular

there is a closed subset C A such that

(A \ C) .

Let us compute (C).

Fix a positive expansivity constant of (c.f. Denition 3.12).

Since f is Lyapunov stable on A and C A for every x C there is

a neighborhood U (x) such that

d(f n (x), f n (y)) <

n N, y U (x) C.

(3.9)

of with

the induced topology. Consequently, the open covering {U (x) C :

x C} of C admits a countable subcovering {U (xi ) C : i N}.

Then,

(U (xi ) C) .

(3.10)

(C)

iN

(xi ) and then (U (xi ) C) ( (x)) = 0 since is a positive

expansivity constant. As i is arbitrary we obtain (C) = 0 by (3.10).

To nish we observe that

(A) = (A \ C) + (C) = (A \ C)

and so (A) = 0 since is arbitrary. This ends the proof.

From these propositions we obtain the following corollary. Recall

that the recurrent set of f : X X is dened by R(f ) = {x X :

x f (x)}, where

nk

f (x) = y X : y = lim f (x) for some sequence nk .

k

49

either has countably many stable classes or is Lyapunov stable on its

recurrent set has no positively expansive invariant measures.

Proof. First consider the case when there are countably many stable

classes. Suppose by contradiction that there exists a positively expansive invariant measure. Since the collection of stable classes is a

partition of the space it would follow from Proposition 3.14 that the

space has measure zero which is absurd.

Now consider the case when the map f is Lyapunov stable on

R(f ). Again suppose by contradiction that there is a positively expansive invariant measure . Since is invariant we have supp()

R(f ) by Poincare recurrence. However, since f is Lyapunov stable on

R(f ) we obtain (R(f )) = 0 from Proposition 3.16 so (supp())) =

(R(f )) = 0 which is absurd. This proves the result.

3.4

Applications

We start this section by proving that positive entropy implies expansiveness among ergodic invariant measures for continuous maps on

compact metric spaces. Afterward we include some short applications.

To star with we introduce the following basic result due to Brin

and Katok [18]. Let be an invariant measure of a measurable map

f : X X of a metric space X. The entropy of with respect to f

is dened by

h (f ) = sup{h (f, P ) : P is a nite measurable partition of X},

where

1

() log ()

n n

h (f, P ) = lim

Pn1

Theorem 3.18 (Brin-Katok Theorem). If is a non-atomic ergodic invariant measure of a continuous map f : X X of a compact

metric space, then

sup lim inf

>0 n

log((B[x, n, ]))

= h (f ),

n

-a.e. x X.

50

Theorem 3.19. Every ergodic invariant probability measure with

positive entropy of a continuous map on a compact metric space is

positively expansive.

Proof. Let be an ergodic invariant measure with positive entropy

h (f ) > 0 of a continuous map f : X X on a compact metric

space X. Fix > 0 and dene

X = {x X : ( (x)) = 0}.

Clearly X = 1

(0) (where is dened in (3.4) and so X is measurable by Lemma 3.4. Then, we are left to prove by Lemma 3.11

that there is > 0 such that (X ) = 1.

Fix x X. It follows from the denition of (x) that (x)

f 1 ( (f (x))) so

( (x)) ( (f (x)))

since is invariant. Then, ( (x)) = 0 whenever x f 1 (X )

yielding

f 1 (X ) X .

Denote by AB the symmetric dierence of the sets A, B. Since

(f 1 (X )) = (X ) the above implies that X is essentially invariant, i.e., (f 1 (X )X ) = 0. Since is ergodic we conclude that

(X ) {0, 1} for all > 0. Then, we are left to prove that there is

> 0 such that (X ) > 0. To nd it we proceed as follows.

For all > 0 we dene the map : X IR {},

(x) = lim inf

n

Take h =

h (f )

2

Xm

log (B[x, n, ])

.

n

= x X : m1 (x) > h ,

m IN + .

From this it follows that X m X m for m m and further

x X : sup (x) = h (f )

X m.

>0

mIN +

51

Then,

x X : sup (x) = h (f )

>0

lim (X m ).

m

So, the Brin-Katok Theorem implies

x X : sup (x) = h (f )

=1

>0

yielding

lim (X m ) = 1.

(X m ) > 0.

1

works.

We shall prove that = m

m

Let us take x X . It follows from the denition of X m that

(B[x, n, ]) < ehn for all n large. Since h > 0 we conclude that

limn (B[x, n, ]) = 0. Since ,n (x) = (B[x, n, ]) we conclude

from (3.3) that ( (x)) = 0 thus x X . As x X m is arbitrary

we obtain X m X whence

0 < (X m ) (X )

and the proof follows.

The converse of the above theorem is false, i.e., a positively expansive measure may have zero entropy even in the ergodic invariant

case. A counterexample is as follows.

Example 3.20. There are continuous maps in the circle exhibiting

ergodic invariant measures with zero entropy which, however, are positively expansive.

Proof. Since all circle homeomorphisms have zero topological entropy

it remains to prove that every Denjoy map h exhibits positively expansive measures. As is well-known h is uniquely ergodic and the

support of its unique invariant measure is a minimal set, i.e., a

52

invariant. We shall prove that this measure is positively expansive.

Denote by E the support of . It is well known that E is a Cantor

set. Let be half of the length of the biggest interval I in the complement S 1 E of E and take 0 < < /2. Fix x S 1 and denote

by Int() the interior operation. We claim that Int( (x)) E = .

Otherwise, there is some z Int( (x)) E. Pick w I (thus

w E). Since E is minimal there is a sequence nk such that

hnk (w) z. Since is a nite measure, the interval sequence

{hn (I) : n IN } is disjoint, we have that the length of the intervals

hnk (I) 0 as k . It turns out that there is some integer k

such that hnk (I) (x).

From this and the fact that h( (x)) (h(x)) one sees that

I B[hnk (x), ] which is clearly absurd because the length of I is

greather than > 2. This contradiction proves the claim. Since

(x) is either a closed interval or {x} the claim implies that (x)

E = (x) E consists of at most two points. Since is clearly

non-atomic we conclude that ( (x)) = 0. Since x S 1 is arbitrary

we are done.

A rst application of Theorem 3.19 is as follows.

Theorem 3.21. The stable classes of a continuous map of a compact

metric space have measure zero with respect to any ergodic invariant

measure with positive entropy.

Proof. In fact, since these measures are positively expansive by Theorem 3.19 we obtain the result from Proposition 3.14.

We can also use Theorem 3.19 to compute the topological entropy

of certain continuous maps (for the related concepts see [3] or [89]).

As a motivation let us mention the known facts that both transitive

continuous maps with countably many stable classes on compact metric spaces and continuous maps of the interval or the circle which are

Lyapunov stable on their recurrent sets have zero topological entropy

(see Corollary 2.3 p. 263 in [45], [35], Theorem B in [81] and [92]).

Indeed we improve these result in the following way.

53

either has countably many stable classes or is Lyapunov stable on its

recurrent set has zero topological entropy.

Proof. If the topological entropy were not zero the variational principle [89] would imply the existence of ergodic invariant measures with

positive entropy. But by Theorem 3.19 these measures are positively

expansive against Corollary 3.17.

Example 3.23. An example satisfying the rst part of Theorem 3.22

is the classical pole North-South dieomorphism on spheres. In fact,

the only stable sets of this dieomorphism are the stable sets of the

poles. The Morse-Smale dieomorphisms [40] are basic examples

where these hypotheses are fullled.

Now we use positively expansive measures to study the chaoticity

in the sense of Li and Yorke [60]. Recall that if 0 a -scrambled

set of f : X X is a subset S X satisfying

lim inf d(f n (x), f n (y)) = 0

n

and

n

(3.11)

for all dierent points x, y S. The following result relates scrambled

sets with positively expansive measures.

Theorem 3.24. A continuous map of a Polish metric space carrying

an uncountable -scrambled set for some > 0 also carries positively

expansive probability measures.

Proof. Let X a Polish metric space and f : X X be a continuous

map carrying an uncountable -scrambled set for some > 0. Then,

by Theorem 16 in [13], there is a closed uncountable -scrambled set

S. As S is closed and X is Polish we have that S is also a Polish metric

space with respect to the induced metric. As S is uncountable we have

from [73] that there is a non-atomic Borel probability measure in S.

Let be the Borel probability induced by in X, i.e., (A) = (AS)

for all Borelian A X. We shall prove that this measure is positively

expansive. If x S and y (x) S we have that x, y S and

2

d(f n (x), f n (y)) 2 for all n N therefore x = y by the second

inequality in (3.11). We conclude that (x) S = {x} for all x S.

2

54

2

2

for all x S. On other hand, it is clear that every open set which

does not intersect S has -measure 0 so is supported in the closure

of S. As S is closed we obtain that is supported on S. We conclude

that ( (x)) = 0 for -a.e. x X, so, is positively expansive by

2

Lemma 3.11.

Corollary 3.25. Every homeomorphism of a compact metric space

carrying an uncountable -scrambled set for some also carries positively expansive invariant probability measures.

Proof. Every compact metric space is Polish so Theorem 3.24 yields

positively expansive probability measures. Now apply Theorem 3.7.

Now recall that a continuous map is Li-Yorke chaotic if it has an

uncountable 0-scrambled set.

Until the end of this section M will denote either the interval

I = [0, 1] or the unit circle S 1 .

Corollary 3.26. Every Li-Yorke chaotic map in M carries positively

expansive measures.

Proof. Theorem in p. 260 of [31] together with theorems A and B in

[57] imply that every Li-Yorke chaotic map in M has an uncountable

-scrambled set for some > 0. Then, we obtain the result from

Theorem 3.24.

It follows from Example 3.20 that there are continuous maps with

zero topological entropy in the circle exhibiting positively expansive

invariant measures. This leads to the question whether the same

result is true on compact intervals. The following consequence of the

above corollary gives a partial positive answer for this question.

Example 3.27. There are continuous maps with zero topological entropy in the interval carrying positively expansive measures.

Indeed, by [47] there is a continuous map of the interval, with zero

topological entropy, exhibiting a -scrambled set of positive Lebesgue

measures for some > 0. Since sets with positive Lebesgue measure

55

Another interesting example is the one below.

Example 3.28. The Lebesgue measure is an ergodic invariant measure with positive entropy of the tent map f (x) = 1 |2x 1| in I.

Therefore, this measure is positively expansive by Theorem 3.19.

It follows from this example that there are continuous maps in

I carrying positively expansive measures with full support (i.e.

supp() = I). These maps also exist in S 1 (e.g. an expanding map).

Now, we prove that Li-Yorke and positive topological entropy are

equivalent properties among these maps in I. But previously we

need a result based on the following well-known denition.

A wandering interval of a map f : M M is an interval J M

such that f n (J) f m (J) = for all dierent integers n, m N and

no point in J belongs to the stable set of some periodic point.

Lemma 3.29. If f : M M is continuous, then every wandering

interval has measure zero with respect to every positively expansive

measure.

Proof. Let J a wandering interval and be a positively expansive

measure with expansivity constant (c.f. Denition 3.12). To prove

(J) = 0 it suces to prove Int(J) supp() = 0 since is nonatomic. As J is a wandering interval one has limn |f n (J)| = 0,

where | | denotes the length operation.

From this there is a positive integer n0 satisfying

|f n (J)| < ,

n n0 .

(3.12)

n0 is xed we can select > 0 such that B[x, ] Int(J) and

|f n (B[x, ])| < for 0 n n0 . This together with (3.12) implies |f n (x) f n (y)| < for all n N therefore B[x, ] (x) so

(B[x, ]) = 0 since is an expansivity constant. Thus x

supp()

and we are done.

From this we obtain the following corollary.

56

measures with full support of the circle or the interval has no wandering intervals. Consequently, a continuous map of the interval carrying positively expansive measures with full support is Li-Yorke chaotic

if and only if it has positive topological entropy.

Proof. The rst part is a direct consequence Lemma 3.29 while, the

second, follows from the rst since a continuous interval map without

wandering intervals is Li-Yorke chaotic if and only if it has positive

topological entropy [82].

3.5

is the well-known fact that a dieomorphism restricted to a hyperbolic basic set is expansive. In fact, it is tempting to say that every

hyperbolic ergodic measures of a dieomorphism is positively expansive (or at least expansive) but the Dirac measure supported on a

hyperbolic periodic point is a counterexample. This shows that some

extra hypotheses are necessary for a hyperbolic ergodic measure to

be positively expansive. Indeed, by the results above, we only need

to recognize which conditions imply positive entropy. Let us state

some basic denitions in order to present our result.

Assume that X is a compact manifold and that f is a C 1 dieomorphism. We say that point x X is a regular point whenever there

are positive integers s(x) and numbers {1 (x), , s(x) (x)} IR

(called Lyapunov exponents) such that for every v Tx M \ {0} there

is 1 i s(x) such that

1

log Df n (x)v = i (x).

n

An invariant measure is called hyperbolic if there is a measurable

subset A with (A) = 1 such that i (x)

= 0 for all x A and all

1 i s(x).

On the other hand, the Eckmann-Ruelle conjecture [9] asserts that

every hyperbolic ergodic measure is exac-dimensional, i.e., the limit

below

(B(x, r))

d(x) = lim+

r

r0

lim

57

dimension of .

With these denitions we can state the following result.

Theorem 3.31. Let f be a C 2 dieomorphism of a compact manifold.

1. Every hyperbolic ergodic measure of f which either has positive

dimension or is absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue

is positively expansive.

2. If f has a non-atomic hyperbolic ergodic measure, then f also

has a positively expansive ergodic invariant measure.

Proof. Let us prove (1). First assume that the measure has positive

dimension. As noticed in [9] p. 761 Theorem C p. 544 in [58] implies

that if the entropy vanishes, then the stable and unstable dimension

of the measure also do. In such a case we have from Theorem F

p. 548 in [58] that the measure has zero dimension, a contradiction.

Therefore, the measure has positive entropy and then we are done by

Theorem 3.19.

Now assume that the measure is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure. Then, it is non-atomic so the argument in the proof of Theorem 4.2 p. 167 in [56] implies that it

has at least one positive Lyapunov exponent. Therefore, the Pesin

formula (c.f. p. 139 in [52]) implies positive entropy so we are done

by Theorem 3.19.

To prove (2) we only have to see that Corollary 4.2 in [52] implies

that every dieomorphism as in the statement of (2) has positive

topological entropy. Then, we are done by the variational principle

and Theorem 3.19 (see Exercice 3.39).

3.6

Exercices

Exercice 3.32.

of the Bernoulli dieomorphism in S 2 found in [53] (therefore Corollary 1.41 is false

58

Exercice 3.33.

positively expansive invariant measures?

Exercice 3.34.

Prove that a Borel probability measure of X is positively expansive for f if and

only if if there is > 0 such that

for all x X,

n

Exercice 3.35. Prove the equivalence of the following properties for every continuous map f : X X of compact metric space and every Borel probabiltity

measure of X:

is positively expansive for f ;

there is n N+ such that is positively expansive for f n ;

is positively expansive for f n , n N+ .

Exercice 3.36.

measures.

Exercice 3.37.

Exercice 3.38.

for a measurable map f : X X of a metric space X if and only if there are > 0

and a negligible set X0 of X such that ( (x)) = 0 for every x X0 (negligible

means that (A) = 0 for every measurable subset A X0 ).

Exercice 3.39.

f : X X satises the variational principle,

h(f ) =

sup

M

exp (f )

h (f ),

(of course, with the supremum being zero if Mexp (f ) = ).

Exercice 3.40.

that (x) = {x} for -a.e. x X. Find examples of homeomorphisms of compact

metric spaces exhibiting expansive ergodic invariant measures which are not almost

expansive.

Exercice 3.41.

59

Exercice 3.42.

Lebesgue measure is positively expansive for the map g (x) = (1 |2x 1|) of the

unit interval I. Analogously for the family f (x) = x(1 x) , 0 4.

Exercice 3.43.

space X positively measure-expansive if every non-atomic Borel measure is positively

expansive for f . Find examples of positively measure-expansive homeomorphisms of

non-atomic compact metric spaces.

Exercice 3.44.

which is positively measure-expansive (and so measure-expansive) but not expansive.

Exercice 3.45.

the circle. Conclude that there are continuous maps of compact metric spaces with

positively expansive measures which are not Li-Yorke chaotic.

Exercice 3.46. Does every Li-Yorke chaotic map of a compact metric space

carry positively expansive measures?

Exercice 3.47.

Are there dieomorphisms of closed manifolds exhibiting nonatomic hyperbolic measure which are neither expansive nor positively expansive?

sensitive for a Borel measure if there is > 0 such that

2 ({(x, y) X X : n N such that d(f n (x), f n (y)) }) = 1

(c.f. [27]). Prove that a Borel probability measure of X is positively expansive for

f if and only if f is pairwise sensitive for .

Chapter 4

Measure-sensitive maps

4.1

Introduction

In this chapter we will try to extend the notion of measure expansivity from metric to measurable spaces. For this we introduce

the auxiliary denition of measure-sensitive partitions and measuresensitive spaces. We prove that every non-atomic standard probability spaces is measure-sensitive and that every measure-sensitive

probability spaces is non-atomic. With this concept we introduce the

notion of measure-sensitive partition which will play a role similar

to the expansivity constant for expansive maps. We prove that in

a non-atomic probability space every strong generator is a measuresensitive partition but not conversely (results about strong generators

can be found in [41], [48], [69], [70] and [71]). We exhibit examples of measurable maps in non-atomic probability spaces carrying

measure-sensitive partitions which are not strong generators. Motivated by these examples we shall study the measure-sensitive maps(1 )

i.e. measurable maps on measure spaces carrying measure-sensitive

partitions. Indeed, we prove that every measure-sensitive map is aperiodic and also, in the probabilistic case, that its corresponding space

is non-atomic.

From this we obtain a characterization of nonsingular countable

1 Called

60

61

to one measure-sensitive mappings on non-atomic Lebesgue probability spaces as those having strong generators. Furthermore, we

prove that every ergodic measure-preserving map with positive entropy is a probability space is measure-sensitive (thus extending a

result in [27]). As an application we obtain some properties for ergodic measure-preserving maps with positive entropy (c.f. corollaries

4.14 and 4.20). A reference for the results in this chapter is [64].

4.2

Measure-sensitive spaces

Hereafter the term countable will mean either nite or countably innite.

A measure space is a triple (X, B, ) where X is a set, B is a algebra of subsets of X and is a positive measure in B. A probability

space is one for which (X) = 1.

A partition is a disjoint collection P of nonempty measurable sets

whose union is X. We allow () = 0 for some P . Given

partitions P and Q we write P Q to mean that each member of Q

is contained in some member of P (mod 0). A sequence of partitions

{Pn : n N} (or simply Pn ) is increasing if Pi Pj for i j.

Motivated by the concept of Lebesgue sequence of partitions (c.f.

p. 81 in [61]) we introduce the following denition.

Denition 4.1. A measure-sensitive sequence of partitions of a measure space (X, B, ) is an increasing sequence of countable partitions

Pn such that

n = 0

nN

measure-sensitive space is a measure space carrying measure-sensitive

sequences of partitions.

Let us present a sucient condition for sequences of partitions to

be measure-sensitive. Recall that the join of nitely many partitions

P0 , , Pn is the partition dened by

n

n

Pk =

k : k Pk , 0 k n .

k=0

k=0

62

Certainly

Pn =

n

f k (P ),

n N,

(4.1)

k=0

Pn (x) =

n

f k (P (f k (x)),

x X.

k=0

{y X : f n (y) P (f n (x)),

f n (P (f n (x))) =

n=0

n N} =

Pn (x),

n=0

lim sup () = 0

n Pn

(4.2)

is sucient condition for an increasing sequence Pn of countable partitions to be measure-sensitive. It is also necessary in probability

spaces (see Exercice 4.27).

Let us state basic properties of the measure-sensitive spaces. For

this recall that a measure space is non-atomic if it has no atoms, i.e.,

measurable sets A of positive measure satisfying (B) {0, (A)}

for every measurable set B A. Recall that a standard probability

space is a probability space (X, B, ) whose underlying measurable

space (X, B) is isomorphic to a Polish space equipped with its Borel

-algebra (e.g. [1]).

The class of measure-sensitive spaces is broad enough to include

all non-atomic standard probability spaces. Precisely we have the

following proposition.

Proposition 4.2. Every non-atomic standard probability spaces is

measure-sensitive.

Proof. It is well-known that if (X, B, ) is a non-atomic standard

probability space, then there are a measurable subset X0 X with

63

such that nN n contains at most one point for every sequence of

measurable sets n in X0 satisfying n Qn , n N (c.f. [61] p.

81). Dening Pn = {X \ X0 } Qn we obtain an increasing sequence

of countable partitions of (X, B, ). It suces to prove that this

sequence is measure-sensitive. For this take a xed (but arbitrary)

sequence of measurable sets n of X with n Pn for all n N. It

follows from the denition of Pn that either n = X \ X0 for

some

n N, or, n Qn for all n N. Then, the intersection nN n

either is contained in X \ X0 or reduces to a single measurable point.

Since both X \ X0 and the measurable points have

zero (for

measure

non-atomic spaces are diuse [10]) we obtain nN n = 0. As n

is arbitrary we are done.

Although measure-sensitive probability spaces need not be standard (Exercice 4.26) we have that all of them are non-atomic. Indeed,

we have the following result of later usage.

Proposition 4.3. Every measure-sensitive probability spaces is nonatomic.

Proof. Suppose by contradiction that a measure-sensitive probability

space (X, B, ) has an atom A. Take a measure-sensitive sequence of

partitions Pn . Since A is an atom one has that n N !n Pn

such that (A n ) > 0 (and so (A n ) = (A)). Notice that

(n n+1 ) > 0 for, otherwise, (A) (A (n n+1 )) = (A

n ) + (A n+1 ) = 2(A) which is impossible in probability spaces.

Now observe that n Pn and Pn Pn+1 , so, there is L Pn+1

such that

= 0.

(4.3)

n

If n+1

yielding

L

(n n+1 ) = n n+1 \

L

n \

L

L

= 0

64

=

L

(mod 0) so A n+1 A n (mod 0) for all n N+ .

From this and well-known properties of probability spaces we obtain

n =

(A n ) = lim (A n ) = (A) > 0.

A

nN

nN

But Pn is measure-sensitive

and n Pn , n N, so nN n = 0

yielding A nN n = 0 which contradicts the above expression.

This contradiction yields the proof.

4.3

Measure-sensitive maps

k N we dene for every partition P the pullback partition f k (P ) =

{f k () : P } which is countable if P is.

Denition 4.4. A measure-sensitive partition of a measurable map

f : X X is a countable partition P satisfying

({y X : f n (y) P (f n (x)),

n N}) = 0,

x X,

(4.4)

The basic examples of measure-sensitive partitions are given as

follows. A strong generator of a measurable map f : X X is a

countable partition P for which the smallest -algebra of B containing

k

(P ) equals B (mod 0) (see [69]).

kN f

The result below is the central motivation of this chapter.

Theorem 4.5. Every strong generator of a measurable map f in a

non-atomic probability space is a measure-sensitive partition of f .

Proof. Let P be a strong generator of a measurable map f : X X

in a non-atomic probability space (X, B, ). Then, the sequence (4.1)

generates B (mod 0).

65

From this and Lemma 5.2 p. 8 in [61] we obtain that the set of

all nite unions of elements of these partitions is everywhere dense in

the measure algebra associated to (X, B, ). Consequently, Lemma

9.3.3 p. 278 in [10] implies that the sequence (4.1) satises (4.2) and

then (4.4) holds.

We shall see in Example 4.13 that the converse of this theorem is

false, i.e., there are certain measurable maps in non-atomic probability spaces carrying measure-sensitive partitions which are not strong

generators. These examples motivates the study of measure-sensitive

partitions for measurable maps in measure spaces.

The following equivalence relates both measure-sensitive partitions for maps and measure-sensitive sequences of partitions of measurable spaces

Lemma 4.6. The following properties are equivalent for measurable

maps f : X X and countable partitions P on measure spaces

(X, B, ):

(i) The sequence Pn in (4.1) is measure-sensitive for X.

(ii) The partition P is measure-sensitive for f .

(iii) The partition P satises

({y X : f n (y) P (f n (x)),

n N}) = 0, -a.e. x X.

f : X X measurable we dene

P (x) = {y X : f n (y) P (f n (x)), n N},

Notice that

P (x) =

Pn (x)

x X.

(4.5)

nN+

and

Pn (x) =

n

i=0

f i (P (f i (x)))

(4.6)

66

so each P (x) is a measurable set. For later use we keep the following

identity

n

i

f (P ) (x) = Pn (x),

x X.

(4.7)

i=0

x X (resp. for -a.e. x X).

First we prove that (i) implies (ii). Suppose that the sequence

(4.1) is measure-sensitive

and x x X. By (4.5) and (4.7) we have

Pn is

P (x) = nN n where n = Pn (x) Pn . As the sequence

measure-sensitive we obtain (P (x)) = nN n = 0 proving

(ii). Conversely, suppose that (ii) holds and let

n be a sequence of

measurable sets with n Pn for all n. Take y nN n . It follows

P (x) by

that y Pn(x) for all n N whence y

proving (i).

To prove that (ii) and (iii) are equivalent we only have to prove

that (iii) implies (i). Assume by contradiction that P saties (iii)

but not (ii). Since is a probability and (3) holds the set X =

{x X : (P (x)) = 0} has measure one. Since (ii) does not hold

there is x X such that (P (x)) > 0. Since is a probability

and X has measure one we would have P (x) X

= so there

is y P (x) such that (P (y)) = 0. But clearly the collection

{P (x) : x X} is a partition (for P is) so P (x) = P (y) whence

(P (x)) = (P (y)) = 0 which is a contradiction. This ends the

proof.

Recall that a measurable map f : X X is measure-preserving if

f 1 = . Moreover, it is ergodic if every measurable invariant set A

(i.e. A = f 1 (A) (mod 0)) satises either (A) = 0 or (X \ A) = 0;

and totally ergodic if f n is ergodic for all n N+ .

Example 4.7. If f is a totally ergodic measure-preserving map of a

probability space, then every countable partition P with 0 < () < 1

for some P is measure-sensitive with respect to f (this follows

from the equivalence (iii) in Lemma 4.6 and Lemma 1.1 p. 208 in

[61]).

67

f : X X. We shall not assume that f is measure-preserving unless

otherwise stated.

Using the Kolmogorov-Sinais entropy we obtain sucient conditions for the measure-sensitivity of a given partition. Recall that the

entropy of a nite partition P is dened by

() log ().

H(P ) =

P

h(f, P ) = lim

1

H(Pn1 ).

n

Lemma 4.8. A nite partition with nite positive entropy of an ergodic measure-preserving map f in a probability space is a measuresensitive partition of f .

Proof. Since f is ergodic, the Shannon-Breiman Theorem (c.f. [61]

p. 209) implies that the partition P (say) satises

1

log((Pn (x))) = h(f, P ),

n n

lim

-a.e. x X,

(4.8)

where Pn (x) is as in (4.6). On the other hand, Pn+1 (x) Pn (x) for

all n so (4.5) implies

(P (x)) = lim (Pn (x)),

n

x X.

(4.9)

But h(f, P ) > 0 so (4.8) implies that (Pn (x)) goes to zero for -a.e.

x X. This together with (4.9) implies that P satisfy the equivalence

(iii) in Lemma 4.6 so P is measure-sensitive.

It follows at once from Lemma 4.6 that measure-sensitive maps

only exist on measure-sensitive spaces. Consequently we obtain the

following result from Proposition 4.3.

68

maps is non-atomic.

A simple but useful example is as follows.

Example 4.10. The irrational rotations in the circle are measuresensitive maps with respect to the Lebesgue measure. This follows

from Example 4.7 since all such maps are measure-preserving and

totally ergodic.

On the other hand, it is not dicult to nd examples of measuresensitive measure-preserving maps which are not ergodic. These examples together with Example 4.10 suggest the question whether an

ergodic measure-preserving map is measure-sensitive. However, the

answer is negative by the following example.

Example 4.11. If (X, B, ) is a measure space with B = {X, }, then

no map is measure-sensitive although they are all ergodic measurepreserving.

In spite of this we can give conditions for the measure-expansivity

of ergodic measure-preserving maps as follows.

Recall that the entropy (c.f. [61], [89]) of f is dened by

h(f ) = sup{h(f, Q) : Q is a nite partition of X}.

We obtain a result closely related to Theorem 3.19 and Theorem 3.1

in [27].

Theorem 4.12. Every ergodic measure-preserving maps with positive entropy of a probability space is measure-sensitive.

Proof. Let f be one of such a map with entropy h(f ) > 0. We can

assume that h(f ) < . It follows that there is a nite partition Q

n1

with 0 < h(f, Q) < . Taking P = i=0 f i (Q) with n large we

obtain a nite partition with nite positive entropy since h(f, P ) =

h(f, Q) > 0. It follows that P is measure-sensitive by Lemma 4.8

whence f is measure-sensitive by denition.

A rst consequence of the above result is that the converse of

Theorem 4.5 is false.

69

Example 4.13. Let f : X X be a homeomorphism with positive topological entropy of a compact metric space X. By the variational principle [89] there is a Borel probability measures with

respect to which f is an ergodic measure-preserving map with positive entropy. Then, by Theorem 4.12, f carries a measure-sensitive

partition which, by Corollary 4.18.1 in [89], cannot be a strong generator. Consequently, there are measurable maps in certain non-atomic

probability spaces carrying measure-sensitive partitions which are not

strong generators.

On the other hand, it is also false that ergodic measure-sensitive

measure-preserving maps on probability spaces have positive entropy.

The counterexamples are precisely the irrational circle rotations (c.f.

Example 4.10). Theorems 4.9 and 4.12 imply the probably wellknown result below.

Corollary 4.14. Every probability spaces carrying ergodic measurepreserving maps with positive entropy is non-atomic.

4.4

Aperiodicity

According to [69] a measurable map f is aperiodic whenever for all

n N+ if n N+ and f n (x) = x on a measurable set A, then

(A) = 0. Let us extend this denition in the following way.

Denition 4.15. We say that f is eventually aperiodic whenever

the following property holds for every (n, k) N+ N: If A is a

measurable set such that for every x A there is 0 i k such that

f n+i (x) = f i (x), then (A) = 0.

It follows easily from the denition that an eventually periodic

map is aperiodic. The converse is true for invertible maps but not

in general (e.g. the constant map f (x) = c where c is a measurable

point of zero mass).

With this denition we can state the following result.

Theorem 4.16. Every measure-sensitive map is eventually aperiodic

(and so aperiodic).

70

and a measurable set A such that for every x A there is 0 i k

such that f n+i (x) = f i (x). Then,

A

k

f i (F ix(f n )),

(4.10)

i=0

of a map g. Let P be a measure-sensitive partition of f . Then,

k+n m

(P ) is a countable partition. Fix x, y A. In particular

m=0 f

k+n

m

f (P ) (x)

=

m=0

whence

y

k+n

f

(P ) (x).

m=0

f m (y) P (f m (x)),

0 m k + n.

(4.11)

{0, , k}. We can assume that j i (otherwise we interchange the

roles of x and y in the argument below).

Now take m > k + n. Then, m > j + n so m j = pn + r for

some p N+ and some integer 0 r < n. Since 0 j + r < k + n

(for 0 j k and 0 r < n) one gets

f m (y) = f mj (f j (y))

=

=

=

(4.11)

f pn+r (f j (y))

f r (f pn (f j (y)))

f j+r (y)

P (f j+r (x)).

But

P (f j+r (x)) = P (f j+ri (f i (x)))

= P (f j+ri (f pn (f i (x))))

= P (f mi (f i (x)))

= P (f m (x))

71

so

f m (y) P (f m (x)),

m > k + n.

This together with (4.11) implies that f m (y) P (f m (x)) for all

m N whence y P (x). Consequently A P (x). As P is

measure-sensitive, Lemma 4.6 implies

(A ) = 0,

k+n

f i (P ).

i=0

k+n

i=0

f i (P ) is a partition so

A=

proof.

k+n

i=0

k+n

i=0

(A )

f i (P )

By Lemma 4.5 we have that, in non-atomic probability spaces, every measurable map carrying strong generators is measure-sensitive.

This motivates the question as to whether every measure-sensitive

map has a strong generator. We give a partial positive answer for

certain maps dened as follows. We say that f is countable to one

(mod 0) if f 1 (x) is countable for -a.e. x X. We say that f

is nonsingular if a measurable set A has measure zero if and only if

f 1 (A) also does. All measure-preserving maps are nonsingular. A

Lebesgue probability space is a complete measure space which is isomorphic to the completion of a standard probability space (c.f. [1],

[10]).

Corollary 4.17. The following properties are equivalent for nonsingular countable to one (mod 0) maps f on non-atomic Lebesgue

probability spaces:

1. f is measure-sensitive.

2. f is eventually aperiodic.

3. f is aperiodic.

72

Proof. Notice that (1) (2) by Theorem 4.16 and (2) (3) follows

from the denitions. On the other hand, (3) (4) by a Parrys

Theorem (c.f. [69], [71], [70]) while (4) (1) by Lemma 4.5.

Denote by F ix(g) = {x X : g(x) = x} the set of xed points of

a mapping g.

Corollary 4.18. If f k = f for some integer k 2, then f is not

measure-sensitive.

Proof. Suppose by contradiction that it does. Then, f is eventually aperiodic by Theorem 4.16. On the other hand, if x X

then f k (x) = f (x) so f k1 (f k (x)) = f k1 (f (x)) = f k (x) therefore f k (x) F ix(f k1 ) whence X f k (F ix(f k1 )). But since f

is eventually aperiodic, n = k 1 N+ and X measurable we obtain

from the denition that (X) = 0 which is absurd. This ends the

proof.

Example 4.19. By Corollary 4.18 neither the identity f (x) = x nor

the constant map f (x) = c are measure-sensitive (for they satisfy

f 2 = f ). In particular, the converse of Theorem 4.16 is false for the

constant maps are eventually aperiodic but not measure-sensitive.

It is not dicult to prove that an ergodic measure-preserving map

of a non-atomic probability space is aperiodic. Then, Corollary 4.14

implies the well-known fact that all ergodic measure-preserving maps

with positive entropy on probability spaces are aperiodic. However,

using theorems 4.12 and 4.16 we obtain the following stronger result.

Corollary 4.20. All ergodic measure-preserving maps with positive

entropy on probability spaces are eventually aperiodic.

Now we study the following variant of aperiodicity introduced in

[41] p. 180.

Denition 4.21. We say that f is HS-aperiodic (2 ) whenever for

every measurable set of positive measure A and n N+ there is a

measurable subset B A such that (B \ f n (B)) > 0.

2 called

aperiodic in [41].

73

or [83] (for further comparisons see p. 88 in [56]).

On the other hand, a measurable map f is negative nonsingular

if (f 1 (A)) = 0 whenever A is a measurable set with (A) = 0.

Some consequences of the aperiodicity on negative nonsingular maps

in probability spaces are given in [56]. Observe that every measurepreserving map is negatively nonsingular.

Let us present two technical (but simple) results for later usage.

We call a measurable set A satisfying A f 1 (A) (mod 0) a positively invariant set (mod 0). For completeness we prove the following

property of these sets.

Lemma 4.22. If A is a positively invariant set (mod 0) of nite

measure of a negative nonsingular map f , then

(A)

= (A).

(4.12)

n=0

invariant (mod 0) one has (A) = (A f 1 (A)), i.e.,

1

(A)

= (A).

n=0

m

(A)

= (A).

n=0

Since

m+1

f

(A)

n=0

m

n=0

f

(A)

m

n=0

f

(A)

\f

m1

(A)

74

and

m

f n (A)

\ f m1 (A)

(f m (A) \ f m1 (A))

n=0

= (f m (A \ f 1 (A)))

= 0

because f is negative

nonsingular

and A is positively invariant (mod

m+1 n

(A) = (A). Therefore

0), one has

n=0 f

m

f n (A)

= (A),

m N,

(4.13)

n=0

f n (A) =

n=0

and

m+1

n=0

f n (A)

f n (A)

n=0

m

f n (A)

m=0 n=0

m

m

(4.13)

n

= lim

f (A)

= lim (A) = (A)

n=0

n=0

proving (4.12).

We use the above lemma only in the proof of the proposition

below.

Proposition 4.23. Let P be a measure-sensitive partition of a negative nonsingular map f . Then, no P with positive nite measure

is positively invariant (mod 0).

Proof. Suppose by contradiction that there is P with 0 < () <

which is positively invariant (mod 0). Taking A = in Lemma

4.22 we obtain

n

f () = ().

(4.14)

n=0

75

As () > 0 we conclude that n=0 f n ()

= , and so, there is x

n

such that f (x) for all n N. As P we obtain P (f n (x)) =

and so f n (P (f n (x))) = f n () for all n N. Using (4.6) we get

Pm (x) =

m

f n ().

n=0

P (x) =

m=0

Pm (x) =

m

m=0 n=0

f n () =

f n ()

n=0

4.6 since P is measure-sensitive which is absurd. This contradiction

proves the result.

We also need the following lemma resembling a well-known property of the expansive maps.

Lemma 4.24. If k N+ , then f is measure-sensitive if and only if

f k is.

f

Proof. The notation P

(x) will indicate the dependence of P (x)

on f .

First of all suppose that f k is an measure-sensitive with measurefk

(x)) = 0 for all x X by Lemma

sensitive partition P . Then, (P

f

fk

f

(x) so (P

(x)) = 0 for

4.6. But by denition one has P (x) P

all x X. Therefore, f is measure-sensitive with measure-sensitive

partition P . Conversely, suppose that f is measure-sensitive with exk

pansivity constant P . Consider Q = i=0 f i (P ) which is a countk

able partition satisfying Q(x) = i=0 f i (P (f i (x))) by (4.7). Now,

k

take y Qf (x). In particular, y Q(x) hence f i (y) P (f i (x)) for

every 0 i k. Take n > k so n = pk + r for some nonnegative

k

integers p and 0 r < k. As y Qf (x) one has f pk (y) Q(f pk (x))

and then f n (y) = f pk+i (y) = f i (f pk (y)) P (f i (f pk (x)) = P (f n (x))

proving f n (y) P (f n (x)) for all n N. Then, y P (x) yielding

k

k

Qf (x) P (x). Thus (Qf (x)) = 0 for all x X by the equivalence (ii) in Lemma 4.6 since P is measure-sensitive. It follows that

f k is measure-sensitive with measure-sensitive partition Q.

76

Theorem 4.25. Every measure-sensitive negative nonsingular map

in a probability space is HS-aperiodic.

Proof. Suppose by contradiction that there is a measure-sensitive

map f which is negative nonsingular but not HS-aperiodic. Then,

there are a measurable set of positive measure A and n N+ such

that (B \ f n (B)) = 0 for every measurable subset B A. It

follows that every measurable subset B A is positively invariant

(mod 0) with respect to f n . By Lemma 4.24 we can assume n = 1.

Now, let P be a measure-sensitive partition of f . Clearly, since

(A) > 0 there is P such that (A ) > 0. Taking = A we

obtain that is positively invariant (mod 0) with positive measure.

In addition, consider the new partition Q = (P \ {}) {, \ A}

which is clearly measure-sensitive (for P is). Since this partition also

carries a positively invariant (mod 0) member of positive measure

(say ) we obtain a contradiction by Proposition 4.23. The proof

follows.

4.5

Exercices

Exercice 4.26.

Exercice 4.27.

measure-sensitive is also necessary in probability spaces.

Exercice 4.28. Is the converse of Proposition 4.3 true among probability spaces,

namely, is every non-atomic probability space measure-sensitive?

Exercice 4.29.

Exercice 4.30.

of a probability space (X, B, ), then limn h(f, Pn ) exists for every measurepreserving map f : X X. Prove that this limit may depend on the measuresensitive sequence Pn .

Exercice 4.31.

77

which is pairwise sensitive with respect to a Borel probability measure is measuresensitive with respect to . Find a counterexample for the converse of this statement.

Exercice 4.32.

Bibliography

[1] Aaronson, J., An introduction to innite ergodic theory, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 50. American Mathematical

Society, Providence, RI, 1997.

[2] Adler, R., L., Symbolic dynamics and Markov partitions, Bull.

Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 35 (1998), no. 1, 156.

[3] Adler, R., L., Konheim, A., G., McAndrew, M., H., Topological

entropy, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 114 (1965), 309319.

[4] Akin, E., The general topology of dynamical systems. Graduate Studies in Mathematics, 1. American Mathematical Society,

Providence, RI, 1993.

[5] Aoki, N., Hiraide, K., Topological theory of dynamical systems, Recent advances. North-Holland Mathematical Library,

52. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1994.

[6] Arbieto, A., Morales, C.A., Some properties of positive entropy

maps, Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems (to appear).

[7] Arbieto, A., Morales, C.A., Expansivity of ergodic measures with

positive entropy, arXiv:1110.5598v1 [math.DS] 25 Oct 2011.

[8] Auslander, J., Berg, K., A condition for zero entropy, Israel J.

Math. 69 (1990), no. 1, 5964.

[9] Barreira, L., Pesin, Y., Schmeling, J., Dimension and product

structure of hyperbolic measures, Ann. of Math. (2) 149 (1999),

no. 3, 755783.

79

80

BIBLIOGRAPHY

164 (1972), 323331.

[11] Bowen, R., Some systems with unique equilibrium states, Math.

Systems Theory 8 (1974/75), no. 3, 193202.

[12] Bowen, R., Ruelle, D., The ergodic theory of Axiom A ows,

Invent. Math. 29 (1975), no. 3, 181202.

[13] Blanchard, F., Huang, W., Snoha, L., Topological size of scrambled sets Colloq. Math. 110 (2008), no. 2, 293361.

[14] Blanchard, F., Host, B., Ruette, S., Asymptotic pairs in positiveentropy systems, Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 22 (2002), no.

3, 671686.

[15] Blanchard, F., Glasner, E., Kolyada, S., Maass, A., On Li-Yorke

pairs, J. Reine Angew. Math. 547 (2002), 5168.

[16] Block, L., S., Coppel, W., A., Dynamics in one dimension, Lecture Notes in Math., 1513, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992.

[17] Bogachev, V., I., Measure theory. Vol. II. Springer-Verlag,

Berlin, 2007.

[18] Brin, M., Katok, A., On local entropy, Geometric dynamics (Rio

de Janeiro, 1981), 3038, Lecture Notes in Math., 1007, Springer,

Berlin, 1983.

[19] Bryant, B., F., Expansive Self-Homeomorphisms of a Compact

Metric Space, Amer. Math. Monthly 69 (1962), no. 5, 386391.

[20] Bryant, B. F., Walters, P., Asymptotic properties of expansive

homeomorphisms, Math. Systems Theory 3 (1969), 6066.

[21] Buzzi, J., Fisher, T., Entropic stability beyond partial hyperbolicity, Preprint arXiv:1103.2707v1 [math.DS] 14 Mar 2011.

[22] Carrasco-Olivera, D., Morales, C.A., Expansive measures for

ows, Preprint 2013 (to appear).

[23] Cao, Y.,, Zhao, Y., Measure-theoretic pressure for subadditive

potentials, Nonlinear Anal. 70 (2009), no. 6, 22372247.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

81

perturbations of expansive homeomorphisms of surfaces, Nonlinearity 12 (1999), no. 2, 321332.

[25] Cerminara, M., Lewowicz, J., Some open problems concerning

expansive systems, Rend. Istit. Mat. Univ. Trieste 42 (2010),

129141.

[26] Cheng, W-C., Forward generator for preimage entropy, Pacic

J. Math. 223 (2006), no. 1, 516.

[27] Cadre, B., Jacob, P., On pairwise sensitivity, J. Math. Anal.

Appl. 309 (2005), no. 1, 375382.

[28] Coven, E., M., Keane, M., Every compact metric space that supports a positively expansive homeomorphism is nite, Dynamics

& stochastics, 304305, IMS Lecture Notes Monogr. Ser., 48,

Inst. Math. Statist., Beachwood, OH, 2006.

[29] Das, R., Expansive self-homeomorphisms on G-spaces, Period.

Math. Hungar. 31 (1995), no. 2, 123130.

[30] Dai, X., Geng, X., Zhou, Z., Some relations between Hausdordimensions and entropies, Sci. China Ser. A 41 (1998), no. 10,

10681075.

[31] Du, B-S. Every chaotic interval map has a scrambled set in the

recurrent set, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 39 (1989), no. 2, 259264.

[32] Dydak, J., Hoand, C., S., An alternative denition of coarse

structures, Topology Appl. 155 (2008), no. 9, 10131021.

[33] Eisenberg, M., Expansive transformation semigroups of endomorphisms, Fund. Math. 59 (1966), 313321.

[34] Fathi, A., Expansiveness, hyperbolicity and Hausdor dimension, Comm. Math. Phys. 126 (1989), no. 2, 249262.

[35] Fedorenko, V., V., Smital, J., Maps of the interval Ljapunov stable on the set of nonwandering points, Acta Math. Univ. Comenian. (N.S.) 60 (1991), no. 1, 1114.

82

BIBLIOGRAPHY

85 1963 477515.

[37] Goodman, T., N., T., Relating topological entropy and measure

entropy, Bull. London Math. Soc. 3 (1971), 176180.

[38] Goodman, T., N., T., Maximal measures for expansive homeomorphisms, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 5 (1972), 439444.

[39] Gottschalk, W., H., Hedlund, G., A., Topological dynamics,

American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, Vol.

36. American Mathematical Society, Providence, R. I., 1955.

[40] Hasselblatt, B., Katok, A., Introduction to the modern theory

of dynamical systems. With a supplementary chapter by Katok

and Leonardo Mendoza, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its

Applications, 54. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.

[41] Helmberg, G., Simons, F., H., Aperiodic transformations, Z.

Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verw. Gebiete 13 (1969), 180

190.

[42] Hiraide, K., Expansive homeomorphisms of compact surfaces are

pseudo-Anosov, Proc. Japan Acad. Ser. A Math. Sci. 63 (1987),

no. 9, 337338.

[43] Huang, W., Stable sets and -stable sets in positive-entropy systems, Comm. Math. Phys. 279 (2008), no. 2, 535557.

[44] Huang, W., Lu, P., Ye, X., Measure-theoretical sensitivity and

equicontinuity, Israel J. Math. 183 (2011), 233283.

[45] Huang, W., Ye, X., Devaneys chaos or 2-scattering implies LiYorkes chaos, Topology Appl. 117 (2002), no. 3, 259272.

[46] Jakobsen, J., F., Utz, W., R., The non-existence of expansive

homeomorphisms on a closed 2-cell, Pacic J. Math. 10 (1960),

13191321.

[47] Jimenez Lopez, V., Large chaos in smooth functions of zero topological entropy, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 46 (1992), no. 2, 271

285.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

83

invariant measure, Advances in Math. 12 (1974), 275295.

[49] Kato, H., Continuum-wise expansive homeomorphisms, Canad.

J. Math. 45 (1993), no. 3, 576598.

[50] Kato, H., Chaotic continua of (continuum-wise) expansive homeomorphisms and chaos in the sense of Li and Yorke, Fund. Math.

145 (1994), no. 3, 261279.

[51] Kato, H., Expansive homeomorphisms on surfaces with holes,

Special volume in memory of Kiiti Morita. Topology Appl. 82

(1998), no. 1-3, 267277.

[52] Katok, A., Lyapunov exponents, entropy and periodic orbits for

Sci. Publ. Math. No. 51

(1980), 137173.

[53] Katok, A., Bernoulli dieomorphisms on surfaces, Ann. of Math.

(2) 110 (1979), no. 3, 529547.

[54] Kifer, Y., Large deviations, averaging and periodic orbits of dynamical systems, Comm. Math. Phys. 162 (1994), no. 1, 3346.

[55] Knowles, J. D., On the existence of non-atomic measures, Mathematika 14 (1967), 6267.

[56] Kopf, C., Negative nonsingular transformations, Ann. Inst. H.

Poincare Sect. B (N.S.) 18 (1982), no. 1, 81102.

[57] Kuchta, M., Characterization of chaos for continuous maps of the

circle, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin. 31 (1990), no. 2, 383390.

[58] Ledrappier, F., Young, L.-S., The metric entropy of dieomorphisms. II. Relations between entropy, exponents and dimension,

Ann. of Math. (2) 122 (1985), no. 3, 540574.

[59] Lewowicz, J., Expansive homeomorphisms of surfaces, Bol. Soc.

Brasil. Mat. (N.S.) 20 (1989), no. 1, 113133.

[60] Li, T.,Y., Yorke, J., A., Period three implies chaos, Amer. Math.

Monthly 82 (1975), no. 10, 985992.

84

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[61] Ma

ne, R., Ergodic theory and dierentiable dynamics. Translated

from the Portuguese by Silvio Levy. Ergebnisse der Mathematik

und ihrer Grenzgebiete (3) [Results in Mathematics and Related

Areas (3)], 8. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987.

[62] Ma

ne, R., Expansive homeomorphisms and topological dimension, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 252 (1979), 313319.

[63] Ma

ne, R., Expansive dieomorphisms, Dynamical systems

Warwick 1974 (Proc. Sympos. Appl. Topology and Dynamical

Systems, Univ. Warwick, Coventry, 1973/1974; presented to E.

C. Zeeman on his ftieth birthday), pp. 162174. Lecture Notes

in Math., Vol. 468, Springer, Berlin, 1975.

[64] Morales, C.A., Partition sensitivity for measurable maps, Math.

Bohem. (to appear).

[65] Morales, C., A., A generalization of expansivity, Discrete Contin.

Dyn. Syst. 32 (2012), 293301.

[66] Morales, C.A., Sirvent, V., Expansivity for measures on uniform

spaces, Preprint 2012 (to appear).

[67] OBrien, T., Expansive homeomorphisms on compact manifolds,

Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 24 (1970), 767771.

[68] Parry, W., Zero entropy of distal and related transformations,

1968 Topological Dynamics (Symposium, Colorado State Univ.,

Ft. Collins, Colo., 1967) pp. 383389 Benjamin, New York.

[69] Parry, W., Aperiodic transformations and generators, J. London

Math. Soc. 43 (1968), 191194.

[70] Parry, W., Principal partitions and generators, Bull. Amer.

Math. Soc. 73 (1967), 307309.

[71] Parry, W., Generators and strong generators in ergodic theory,

Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 72 (1966), 294296.

[72] Parthasarathy, K. R., Probability measures on metric spaces,

Probability and Mathematical Statistics, No. 3 Academic Press,

Inc., New York-London 1967.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

85

[73] Parthasarathy, K., R., Ranga Rao, R., Varadhan, S., R., S.,

On the category of indecomposable distributions on topological

groups, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 102 (1962), 200217.

[74] Reddy, W., The existence of expansive homeomorphisms on

manifolds, Duke Math. J. 32 (1965), 627632.

[75] Reddy, W., Pointwise expansion homeomorphisms, J. London

Math. Soc. (2) 2 (1970), 232236.

[76] Reddy, W., Robertson, L., Sources, sinks and saddles for expansive homeomorphisms with canonical coordinates, Rocky Mountain J. Math. 17 (1987), no. 4, 673681.

[77] Richeson, D., Wiseman, J., Positively expansive homeomorphisms of compact spaces, Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. (2004), no

53-56, 29072910.

[78] Sakai, K., Hyperbolic metrics of expansive homeomorphisms,

Topology Appl. 63 (1995), no. 3, 263266.

[79] Schwartzman., S., On transformation groups, Ph.D. thesis, Yale

Univ., New Haven, CT, 1952.

[80] Sears, M., Expansive self-homeomorphisms of the Cantor set,

Math. Systems Theory 6 (1972), 129132.

[81] Sindelarova, P., A counterexample to a statement concerning

Lyapunov stability Acta Math. Univ. Comenianae 70 (2001),

265268.

[82] Smital, J., Chaotic functions with zero topological entropy,

Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 297 (1986), no. 1, 269282.

[83] Steele, J., M., Covering nite sets by ergodic images, Canad.

Math. Bull. 21 (1978), no. 1, 8591.

[84] Takens, F.,Verbitski, E., Multifractal analysis of local entropies

for expansive homeomorphisms with specication, Comm. Math.

Phys. 203 (1999), no. 3, 593612.

86

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[85] Utz, W., R., Expansive mappings, Proceedings of the 1978 Topology Conference (Univ. Oklahoma, Norman, Okla., 1978), I.

Topology Proc. 3 (1978), no. 1, 221226 (1979).

[86] Utz, W., R., Unstable homeomorphisms, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.

1 (1950), 769774.

[87] Vietez, J., L., Three-dimensional expansive homeomorphisms,

Dynamical systems (Santiago, 1990), 299323, Pitman Res.

Notes Math. Ser., 285, Longman Sci. Tech., Harlow, 1993.

[88] Vieitez, J., L., Expansive homeomorphisms and hyperbolic diffeomorphisms on 3-manifolds, Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems

16 (1996), no. 3, 591622.

[89] Walters, P., An introduction to ergodic theory, Graduate Texts

in Mathematics, 79. Springer-Verlag, New York-Berlin, 1982.

[90] Williams, R., Some theorems on expansive homeomorphisms,

Amer. Math. Monthly 73 (1966), 854856.

[91] Williams, R., On expansive homeomorphisms, Amer. Math.

Monthly 76 (1969), 176178.

[92] Zhou, Z., L., Some equivalent conditions for self-mappings of a

circle, Chinese Ann. Math. Ser. A 12 (1991), suppl., 2227.

Index

countably-expansive, 2

Denjoy, 5

expansive, 1

with respect to (P), 1

h-expansive, 2

measure-expansive, 4

pointwise expansive, 38

proximal, 26

-generator, 14

positive, 44

Atom, 62

Class

stable, 46

Conjecture

Eckmann-Ruelle, 56

Constant

expansivity, 2

positive expansivity, 41

positively expansive, 46

Interval

wandering, 55

Manifold

closed, 6

Map

-isometry, 29

almost distal, 25

aperiodic, 69

eventually, 69

bijective

n-expansive, 32

n-expansive on A, 32

distal, 25

contably to one (mod 0),

71

continuous

Li-Yorke chaotic, 54

Denjoy, 34

entropy, 25

Dieomorphism

Axiom A, 6

Bernoulli, 57

Morse-Smale, 53

Entropy

Kolmogorov-Sinai, 67

zero, 2, 51

Exponent

Lyapunov, 56

Generator

strong, 64

Homeomorphism

-homeomorphism, 27

87

88

entropy of, 68

ergodic, 66

totally, 66

HS-aperiodic, 72

isometry, 4

Lyapunov stable on A, 47

measure-preserving, 66

measure-sensitive, 60

negative nonsingular, 73

nonsingular, 71

pairwise sensitive, 59

positively n-expansive, 32

positively n-expansive on

A, 32

positively expansive, 41

uniformly continuous, 5

uppersemicontinuous, 25

volume expanding, 45

Measure

almost expansive, 58

Borel, 2, 5, 6

dimension, 57

entropy, 49, 50

exact-dimensional, 56

expansive, 2

positively, 41

hyperbolic, 56, 59

Lebesgue, 4

maximal entropy, 39

pointwise expansive, 26

pullback, 5

space

measure-sensitive, 60

support, 11

Metric

n-discrete on A, 28

n-discrete on A

with constant , 28

INDEX

compact, 27

product, 13

restricted, 28

Number

Lebesgue, 15

Pair

asymptotic, 25, 46

Li-Yorke, 25

proximal, 25

Partition, 61

entropy, 67

measure-sensitive, 60, 64

sequence

increasing, 61

Lebesgue, 61

measure-sensitive, 61

Point

-isolated, 27

converging semiorbits, 15

heteroclinic, 20

periodic, 6

regular, 56

Principle

variational, 58

Set

-scrambled, 53

countable, 61

hyperbolic, 6

invariant, 5

negligible, 58

nonwandering, 6

positively invariant, 73

recurrent, 48

stable, 46

Space

INDEX

Lindelof, 4

measure, 61

non-atomic, 3, 62

probability, 2, 61

measure-sensitive, 61

metric

non-atomic, 3

Polish, 3

separable, 16

probability

Lebesgue, 61

probabiltity

Lebesgue, 71

Theorem

Bolzano-Weierstrass, 9

Brin-Katok, 49

Fubini, 43

Parry, 72

Poincare recurrence, 49

recurrence

Poincare, 11

Shannon-Breiman, 67

Topology

weak-*, 8, 9, 44

89

- Eigenvalues on Riemannian ManifoldsDiunggah olehAlfredo Perez
- Arana - Euler y Los Origenes Del Dualismo Contemporaneo (Scan)Diunggah olehabcdefghi1984
- Escritos de Dinámica (Leibniz) -Juan AranaDiunggah olehAlfredo Perez
- Birational Geometry of FolitationsDiunggah olehAlfredo Perez
- Elipsoide de MongeDiunggah olehAlfredo Perez
- Teoría Geométrica de la MedidaDiunggah olehAlfredo Perez
- Teoría Geométrica de la MedidaDiunggah olehAlfredo Perez
- PM_06 Conjuntos de Cantor Dinamica e AritmeticaDiunggah olehjuze mário
- Rosser- INTRODUCTORY RELATIVITYDiunggah olehAlfredo Perez
- topologia algebraicaDiunggah olehAlfredo Perez
- Teoremas en RelatividadDiunggah olehAlfredo Perez
- 145586710-Lewin-Roger-Complejidad-El-caos-como-generador-del-orden-pdf.pdfDiunggah olehcerge
- Teoría de la RelatividadDiunggah olehAlfredo Perez
- Compressive SensingDiunggah olehAlfredo Perez
- Pr12Diunggah olehAlfredo Perez
- Serrin J., The Initial Value Problem for the Navier-Stokes EquationsDiunggah olehAlfredo Perez
- Mecanica de Fluidos NavierStockesDiunggah olehDamianbk
- patenteUnicaDiunggah olehZipolite04
- MORTON GURTIN ME an Introduction to Continuum MechanicsDiunggah olehAnilaBhutia
- Las Teorías de La Turbulencia y La Imaginación en La FísicaDiunggah olehAlfredo Perez
- Birational Geometry of FolitationsDiunggah olehAlfredo Perez
- Chomologia de GruposDiunggah olehAlfredo Perez
- Corcho-Introducao a Analise Harmonica e AplicacoesDiunggah olehAlfredo Perez
- Antonio Conde-Introducao a Toplogia DiferencialDiunggah olehAlfredo Perez
- Pauli, Wolfgang - Escritos Sobre Fisica y FilosofiaDiunggah olehRoman Stonehenge
- On the Effect of the Internal Friction of Fluids on the Motion of PendulumsDiunggah olehAnonymous gM6RZL5lYd
- 09Perfecto_1Diunggah olehAlfredo Perez
- Geroch - Geometrical Quantum MechanicsDiunggah olehdmcrp
- Introducción a La Teoría AsintóticaDiunggah olehAlfredo Perez

- Topologia Geral - Mauricio a. Vilches - UERJDiunggah olehJeovaldo Dias Ferreira
- Elementos de AnáliseDiunggah olehcrisandy
- Topologia 1Diunggah olehmitnels
- Elementos de Analise - Miriam Buss Goncalves.pdfDiunggah olehLucianoDoNascimentoAndre
- Espaço Métrico – Wikipédia, A Enciclopédia LivreDiunggah olehnssbaixar
- Jose Luis Da Silva - Analise FuncionalDiunggah olehAngelito Mogollon
- enade-2008-matemc3a1ticaDiunggah olehjucemar.candido